1992 PLP 184 (PLC)
UNITED BANK LIMITED and 2 others Versus GUL HASSAN SHAIKH
| Citation | 1992 PLP 184 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED and 2 others Versus GUL HASSAN SHAIKH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 184 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 184 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 184 (PLC) (UNITED BANK LIMITED and 2 others Versus GUL HASSAN SHAIKH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Khan for Appellants.
- S. Tauqir Hassan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1991.
- Mr. S. Tauqir Hassan, Advocate has raised preliminary objection that appeal was not presented by aggrieved person as required under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969. He has relied upon the decision of learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Sukkur in Constitutional Petition No. D-230 of 1980, decided on 8-5-1991 in the case of President, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and another v. Muhammad Yakoob Chacher and others. In that case the appeal filed by 'the petitioner was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that it was not presented by the appellant. The order of this Tribunal was challenged before the High Court by the petitioner and the petition was dismissed and the decision of this Tribunal was uphcld by the Hon'ble High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 37(3)
Appeal was not presented by aggrieved party which was a Bank, but was presented by an Officer of Bank on basis of Power of Attorney of Bank
Power of Attorney provided that Attorney in name and on behalf of Bank, could do and perform all acts, deeds as mentioned in Power of Attorney, jointly with another Attorney
Attorney of Bank thus was not authorised to do any act including presentation of memo. of appeal on behalf of appellant Bank singly but only jointly with another Attorney
Memo. of appeal was bearing two signatures, but did not show name of persons who signed memo. of appeal
Other Attorney mentioned in Power of Attorney not being present at the time of presentation of appeal, presentation of such appeal by Attorney of Bank, was unauthorised in circumstances and was not competent.
Judgment & Decree
Sadiq Khan for Appellants. S. Tauqir Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th August, 1991. Mr. S. Tauqir Hassan, Advocate has raised preliminary objection that appeal was not presented by aggrieved person as required under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969. He has relied upon the decision of learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Sukkur in Constitutional Petition No. D-230 of 1980, decided on 8-5-1991 in the case of President, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and another v. Muhammad Yakoob Chacher and others. In that case the appeal filed by 'the petitioner was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that it was not presented by the appellant. The order of this Tribunal was challenged before the High Court by the petitioner and the petition was dismissed and the decision of this Tribunal was uphcld by the Hon'ble High Court.
2. This appeal has been presently Mr. Saheb Dino who is an officer of the appellant Bank and holds Power of Attorney, a copy of which has been produced. Article 1 of this Power of Attorney provides that Attorney in the name and on behalf of the bank can do and perform all the acts, deeds etc. as mentioned in the power of attorney jointly with another Attorney. Thus Mr. Saheb Dino individually :vas not authorised to do any act including the presentation of the memo. of appeal on behalf of the appellant but only jointly with another attorney.
3. Mr. Sadiq Khan states, that memo. of appeal is signed by another Attorney also namely Mr. Muhammad Parial Sangi alongwith Mr. Saheb Dino. The memo of appeal bears two signatures but does not show the name of persons who signed it. However, Mr. Sangi was not present at the time of j presentation of appeal therefore the presentation of appeal by Mr. Saheb Dino f was unauthorised.
4. In view of the above factual position and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh Sukkur appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./1954/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.