2009 PLP 260 (PLC)
JAVAID HUSSAIN NAQI Versus MEMBER BAORD OF DIRECTORS, MCB and others
| Citation | 2009 PLP 260 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | JAVAID HUSSAIN NAQI Versus MEMBER BAORD OF DIRECTORS, MCB and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 260 (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 2009 PLP 260 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 260 (PLC) (JAVAID HUSSAIN NAQI Versus MEMBER BAORD OF DIRECTORS, MCB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Farooq Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from judgment, dated 30-5-2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in F.A.O. No.129-L of 2007).
Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A
Duties of such Manager was of managerial and supervisory nature
Size of Branch of Bank either small or large had no nexus with nature of duties of its Manager
Such Manager was not a "workman", thus, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such petition. Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Javaid Hussain Naqi seeks leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 30-5-2008 of learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby, on acceptance of appeal of the respondent, the judgment, dated 4-10-2007 of the Labour Court, reinstating the petitioner, was set aside. The main ground that prevailed with the learned High Court was that the petitioner was not a "workman" and hence the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his grievance petition under section 25-A. of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. This Court in Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41 has held that employee of a Bank holding a branch and performing a supervisory work although have no power of hire and fire but nature of duties performed by such employee appearing to be of managerial and supervisory nature, such employee would fall beyond the ambit and purview of the term "workman".
3. The present petitioner also is a Branch Manager of Muslim Commercial Bank, performing the duties of managerial and supervisory nature. It is not in the last Branch alone but, according to para. No.3 of his grievance petition (pp.65), he has all along been working as Branch Manager at different stations since November, 1979. Learned High Court was, therefore, justified in holding, in the light of the above referred judgment of this Court, that the petitioner was not a "workman"' and hence the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel that the branch in which the petitioner was last posted, was a small branch, is altogether out of context. The size of a branch has no nexus with the nature of duties of the Manager, which always remain of managerial and supervisory nature. It would be ridiculous to observe that the Manager of a large branch would not be a "workman" and that of a small branch would be. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. S.AK./J-4/SC Leave refused.