1989 PLP 1252(2) (SCMR)
UNITED BANK LTD. and others Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1252(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LTD. and others Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1252(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1252(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1252(2) (SCMR) (UNITED BANK LTD. and others Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. S. Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 3‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in W.P. No.948/S of 1983). ‑‑‑ Bank employee, working as Cashier in Bank was also running a sugar depot‑ Such employee was convicted by a Summary Military Court for indulging in hoarding and was ultimately sentenced to a short term of imprisonment‑‑Bank dismissed the employee consequent upon his conviction Labour Appellate Tribunal ordered re‑instatement of employee on the ground that he had not been given an opportunity to explain his position‑‑Contention of petitioner (Bank) was that employee having been convicted it was not possible to reinstate him in his former post of cashier‑‑Employee giving undertaking before the Court to serve the Bank as Assistant in any capacity and not insisting on the post of cashier thus leaving no point of grievance to Bank‑‑Petition dismissed. Respondent No.1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent was a cashier in the zonal office of the United Bank Limited at Okara. He was also running a sugar depot. He was convicted by a Summary Military Court for indulging in hoarding and was ultimately sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. Consequent upon his conviction the Bank dismissed him from service. The petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court but it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement on the ground that before dismissing him from service, he had not been given an opportunity to explain his position. The Bank challenged the order of the‑ learned Tribunal in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but without any success. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 2 The only grievance of the learned counsel for the Bank is that as respondent No.l has been convicted by a Special Military Court, it is not possible to reinstate him in his former post of cashier and that the respondent is not prepared to accept any other appointment under the Bank. The respondent is 11 present in person and he has filed a statement to the effect that he is prepared to serve the Bank as Assistant in any capacity and that he does not insist that he must be posted as cashier. In view of this undertaking there should be now no grievance to the Bank. Leave is refused. M.B.A./U‑21/S Leave refused