| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 372 2022 SLD 372 2022 PLC 1 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2021, decision dated: 27-08-2021.Dates of hearing: 20-05-10th, 24-06-2021 and 5-08-2021.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Mansoor Ahmad for Petitioner.Shahid Anwar Bajwa for
Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2021, decision dated: 27-08-2021.Dates of hearing: 20-05-10th, 24-06-2021 and 5-08-2021.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Mansoor Ahmad for Petitioner.Shahid Anwar Bajwa for
Respondent.
ZOHRA JABEENVSFIRST WOMAN BANK AND OTHERS
Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Section: 15(3)
(a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. No. 15(3)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) Arts. 117 118---Terms “misconduct” and “habitual negligence or neglect of work”---Financial loss or loss to reputation---Mala fide---Onus to prove, shifting of impugned the order of Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) allowing appeal filed by respondent/Bank (her employer)---Said Bank had dismissed the petitioner on charge of: firstly, posting a number of wrong entries with mala fide intention, one of them amounting to Rs.4,05,567/-; secondly, borrowing money from customers of the bank; and thirdly, being absent without leave---Validity---Letter of charge/dismissal did not specify any sort of misconduct that the petitioner had committed---Deposit of an amount in the account of a wrong account holder could at best be “habitual negligence or neglect of work”---Onus to prove mala fides lay on the respondents---No allegation as to collaboration / collusion with accountholder, or being beneficiary of any of the amount erroneously deposited in the said account---Alleged error in the petitioner’s act of depositing amount in account of an account holder whose name was similar to the account holder in whose account said amount should have been deposited could not be held to reflect on the petitioner’s integrity---No financial loss/loss of reputation to the respondent/bank was proved---Entire amount erroneously deposited was subsequently deposited in the correct account---Nothing on record to show that accountholder had closed his account due to said incident---No finding whatsoever whether the charge of borrowing money from respondent/bank’s customers had been proved---Constitutional petition was allowed and matter was remanded to the Full Bench of NIRC for a decision afresh. Saifi Development Corporation Ltd. v. Workers Union PLD 1965 Kar. 347 and Auqaf Department v. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Zakat, Usher and Minorities Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad 2009 SCMR 210 ref. (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. No.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492