Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2681 2006 SLD 2681 2006 SCMR 1287
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No.635-L of 2005, decision dated: 11-05-2006 (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 9-3-2005 passed in R.P. No.9 of 2005)
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, 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

Mst. ITRAT ZAHIDA and others

VS

PRESIDENT, A.B.L. and others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXII, Rr. 1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Abatement of proceedings---Survival of action---Determination---Service/civil rights, enforcement of---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was employee with respondent bank who was dismissed from service on the allegation of misconduct---Labour Court set aside order of dismissal but Labour Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of bank and restored order of dismissal---Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal was assailed before High Court in constitutional petition which was dismissed solely on the ground that the employee had died during pendency of the petition---Plea raised by petitioners was that the proceedings could not have abated on account of death of their predecessor-in-interest---Validity---Question whether after death of plaintiff or petitioner, proceedings would abate primarily depended on the nature of cause of. action---Any "action" might abate on the death of a party but cause of action might survive his death---"Death" in such context did not mean a civil death---Irrespective of the nature of proceedings whether criminal or civil, it was the nature of cause of action which could determine its survival---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was seeking enforcement of his service/civil rights---Labour Court having considered the entire evidence led during departmental proceedings set aside order of dismissal from service and reinstated him-Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside of Labour Court and the same had been challenged through constitutional petition---If constitutional petition had been allowed, the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal would have been set aside and order of Labour Court reinstating the predecessor-in-interest would have been restored---Even after the death of the employee, legal heirs would have inherited pensionary benefits in such eventuality---Constitutional petition could not have abated in circumstances and legal heirs had a right to be impleaded as a party and to pray for a decision on merits---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and remanded the matter to High Court for deciding…
🔒
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