Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 1285 1990 SLD 1285 1990 PLC 192
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 708 of 1984, decided on 24th October, 1988.
LEHRASAP KHAN, J
Khurshid Ahmad Mian and Altaf Hussain for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muhammad Asghar Malik for
Respondent No. 3.

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through its General Attorney

VS

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through its General Attorney vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute-- ---Domestic enquiry--Enquiry Officer instead of recording evidence against workman and thereafter requiring him to enter upon his defence, provided him with a questionnaire requiting him to record reply thereto--Enquiry Officer, on basis of replies found workman guilty of misappropriation as also of violation of Bank's Rules--Dismissal of workman--Enquiry conducted against workman, held, was illegal and findings of Labour Appellate Tribunal that if proper enquiry were conducted against workman, charge of embez7elcment against him could not have been proved and employer would have awarded him lesser penalty than dismissal from service, were correct and could not be interfered with. Shahzar Khan v. Sind Labour Court No. 4, Karachi and 2 others 1977 S C M R 103; Usman v. Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1984 C L C 2782 and Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen 1904 P L C 135 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss.2 (xxviii) & 25-A--"Workman"--Proof of--Prior to dismissal, employee was admittedly a workman and through his grievance petition he challenged his dismissal from service, before Labour Court--Contention that after his dismissal, workman ceased to be a workman and had no locus standi to file grievance petition, was repelled, holding that he was workman and had locus standi to file grievance petition. Iftikhar Ahmad and others v. President, National Bank of Pakistan and others P L D 1988 S C 53 ref. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.2 (xxviii)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Concurrent findings of fact to the effect that in view of clerical duties performed by employee, he happened to be a workman and not an employee, recorded by Tribunal below, held, would not call for any interference by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. JUDGMENT Mohammad Javid Akhtar, respondent No.3, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was serving as Senior Head Cashier (Officer Grade 111) in Hall Road, Lahore, Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, i.e. the petitioner herein, in the year, 1979. He was served with a…
🔒
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