Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 866 1992 SLD 866 1992 PLC 554
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-24 of 1988, decided on 22nd October, 1991.
MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

1992 P L C 554 UNITED BANK LIMITED

VS

1992 P L C 554 UNITED BANK LIMITED vs

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. 15(2)---Punishment---Treating of absence from duty as extraordinary leave without pay, was not recognised as one of the punishments. (b) Industrial dispute--- ---Workman---Nature of duties which an employee performs, alone could determine whether he was a workman or not, irrespective of his designation. A. Ghani Khan for Petitioner. Respondents (absent). Date of hearing: 21st October, 1991. JUDGMENT MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Petitioner-bank has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against an order dated 23-2-1988 passed by learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. HYD-365 of 1987. Admittedly respondent No.2 was in service of petitioner-bank when on 3-12-1985 his services were terminated after domestic inquiry. Respondent No.2 filed grievance application No.62/87 in the Labour Court at Hyderabad but the same was dismissed on 14-10-1987. Respondent No.2 took the matter to learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which under the impugned order set aside order about termination of service and accepted the appeal and ordered respondent No.2 to be reinstated in service with 30% of the back benefits. Hence this Constitution petition. Mr. Abdui Ghani learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No.2 was an officer as his principal duty was managerial and he was given power of attorney by the petitioner-bank and as such the. Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that removal of respondent No.2 from service was according to law as, respondent No.2 was absent from his duty since 11-2-1984 and consequently his period of absence was treated as leave without pay and his services were terminated. Commenting on the order of Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that treating period of absence from duty, as extraordinary leave was not punishment in terms of Order 15 and that the respondent No.2 could be dismissed due to long absence was treated as leave without pay. In respect of the objection about charge-sheet being time-barred, learned counsel for the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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