| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLG 844 1998 SLD 844 1998 SCMR 2109 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 537 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd July, 1998 (On appeal against the judgment and order dated 16-2-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 1745 of 1983), hearing DATE : 23rd April, 1998
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JJ
Kh. Saeeduz Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Farooq Zawar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for
Respondent No. 1
Civil Appeal No. 537 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd July, 1998 (On appeal against the judgment and order dated 16-2-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 1745 of 1983), hearing DATE : 23rd April, 1998
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JJ
Kh. Saeeduz Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Farooq Zawar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for
Respondent No. 1
STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE through Chief Manager
VS
Ch. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975--Rr. 4 & 5---Powers of Manager of Bank to remit case to Inquiry Officer for obtaining report from him after coming to conclusion that earlier report was not proper---No embargo had been placed under Efficiency arid Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975 on powers of Manager to remit case to Inquiry Officer for obtaining report from him when in his opinion earlier report was not proper---Findings of Inquiry Officer holding employee guilty of charges were not perverse and same being in the nature of domestic inquiry, were not governed by law of evidence or Criminal Procedure in vogue---Labour Court had rightly concluded that procedure prescribed under Rr. 4 & 5, Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975 had been followed in letter and spirit and rightly dismissed employee's grievance application on that score. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIH of 1969)--- ----S. 1(3)(b)---Employee of State Bank of Pakistan could not be deemed to be performing function in connection with administration of State---Labour Appellate Tribunal, thus, erred in holding that employee could not have sought redress of his grievance under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on account of bar contained in S. 1(3)(b) thereof---Labour Forums had jurisdiction to redress said employee's grievance. Faqir Muhammad v. The Director of National Savings, Multan Region, Multan PLD 1992 SC 127; Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution v. N.I.R.C. 1988 SCMR 765; Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Staff Union 1975 PLC 361 and Iftikhar Ahmad and others v. President, National Bank of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 53 ref. (c) Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975--- ----Rr. 4 & * 5---Charge of misappropriation of specified amount against employee and his dismissal from service on account thereof---High Court had ordered re-instatement of employee---Validity---Only circumstance against employee was that specified Form (E-34) bore his seal---Labour Appellate Tribunal had even found that possibility could not be excluded that employee's other…
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