Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 1253 1995 SLD 1253 1995 PLC 436
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1992, decided on 4th December, 1994.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J., AND IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN, J

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

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. Through its General Attorney and another

VS

AMIR HUSSAIN and another

Law:

Section:

(On appeal against from the of the Lahore High Court dated 3-7-1991 passed in W.P. No. 729 of 1984). (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 84---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25-A--­Comparison of handwriting by Court---Failure to examine Handwriting Expert---Effect---Handwriting Expert need not be examined in every case--­Court itself was entitled to make independent comparison of handwriting apart from opinion of expert as contemplated by Art. 84, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. S.M. Zaheer v. Pirzada Syed Fazal Ali Ajmeri 1974 SCMR 490 rel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Grievance application---Labour Court ---Jurisdiction--­Extent---Labour Court has jurisdiction to go behind any order passed by employer including dismissal order relating to its employee and to see for itself as to whether on facts and in circumstances of concerned case, such order was justified or not both on merits as also on law---Provision of S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, contemplates double check against actions of employer, one in the form of domestic inquiry and the other in the form of judicial determination by the Labour Court itself ---Labour Court was, thus, entitled to form its own assessment of veracity of witnesses produced by both sides and on basis thereof, to pass such order as might be just and proper in circumstances of the case---Where Labour Court, after going into all the facts of the case, recorded finding that charge of misconduct stood proved against workman, but Labour Appellate Tribunal on mistaken view of law, set aside order of dismissal, so also High Court fell into error in dismissing Constitutional petition of employer presumably on assumption that expert evidence must be called in every case, Supreme Court set aside orders and restored that of Labour Court. M/s. Cresecent Jute Products, Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others PLD 1978 SC 207 and Habib Bank Ltd. v. Musaddaq Hussain and 2 others 1993 SCMR 126 rel. Javed Altaf, Advocate and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Ejaz M.…
🔒
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