1995 PLP 97 (PLC)
M/s. UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE MEMON
| Citation | 1995 PLP 97 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE MEMON |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 97 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 97 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 97 (PLC) (M/s. UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE MEMON). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Naseer Ahmed for Appellants.
- M. Bashir Awan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Employee initially was appointed as a Grade‑III Officer for a period of six months and on completion of basic training he was appointed on a regular assignment, but his services were terminated simply on ground that his services were no longer required‑‑‑Employee who had become a permanent employee, his services could not be terminated simply on ground that his services were no longer required‑‑‑Order of termination of services of employee which was absolutely inequitable and unjust, was properly vacated by Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Naseer Ahmed for Appellants. M. Bashir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1994. The respondent was appointed as a Grade‑III Officer vide letter dated 28‑9‑1989 for a period of six months. It appears that on the completion of the basic training he was appointed on a regular assignment per order dated 26th of June, 1990. It was thereafter that his services came to be terminated on the 10th of January, 1991 on the ground that the same was no longer required.
2. The petition was resisted on a number of grounds but the contentions came to be repelled and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits culminating in this appeal.
3. It is an axiomatic principle of law that the services of a permanent employee, as the respondent had become, could not be terminated on a ground as indicated in the order. There is enough case‑law on the subject. The order of termination is absolutely inequitable and unjust and was properly vacated. In the result the appeal stands dismissed. H.B.T./2373/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.