| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4030 = 2026 SLD 4030 |
Federal Constitution Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No.2793-L of 2022 (On appeal from judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 29.6.2022 passed in W. P. No.72191 of 2021(old) renamed 522 of 2022(BWP) & W.P. 5528 of 2021)
Presented By: Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, J
For the petitioner: Mian Shahid Iqbal, ASC For the respondents: Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan Lodhi, ASC Date of hearing: 24.7.2026
C.P.L.A. No.2793-L of 2022 (On appeal from judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 29.6.2022 passed in W. P. No.72191 of 2021(old) renamed 522 of 2022(BWP) & W.P. 5528 of 2021)
Presented By: Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, J
For the petitioner: Mian Shahid Iqbal, ASC For the respondents: Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan Lodhi, ASC Date of hearing: 24.7.2026
Muhammad Akram Petitioner
VERSUS
National Bank of Pakistan and others Respondents
Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012
Section: 58
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 12(2)
Summary of the Judgment The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal filed by Muhammad Akram, a former driver of the National Bank of Pakistan, and set aside the Lahore High Court's order that had remanded the matter to the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The Court held that the Bank's application under Regulation 45 of the NIRC Regulations, 2016 read with Section 12(2) CPC was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and was rightly dismissed by the NIRC. Since the order dated 30.11.2020 had attained finality, the Bank could not indirectly challenge it through a time-barred review petition and subsequent writ proceedings. The Court reiterated the settled principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly and that litigation must come to an end. The Court further observed that the Labour Court's judgment dated 18.04.2008, directing reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service, and grant of back benefits, had attained finality and was binding on the Bank. The petitioner, having served from 01.07.1992 until his retirement on 21.05.2017, was entitled to have his entire service counted for pension purposes. The Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits are vested and enforceable legal and fundamental rights that cannot be withheld without lawful authority or a court order. The Bank's prolonged refusal to release pension and retirement benefits despite clear judicial directions was found unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the effect of the Labour Court's judgment and directed that its findings and directions could neither be reopened nor circumvented. Core Legal Principles A time-barred review petition cannot be used to reopen a matter that has already attained finality. Dismissal of a time-barred review application is generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Pensionary benefits are vested and enforceable rights of a retired employee. Continuity of service granted through reinstatement must be counted for pension and retirement benefits. Courts discourage endless litigation and uphold the principle of finality of judicial proceedings. Important Laws and Cases Referred…