1993 PLP 271 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN Versus THE PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 271 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN Versus THE PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 271 (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 1993 PLP 271 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 271 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN Versus THE PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaque Ahmed Shaikh for Appellant.
- Iqbal Habib, Vice‑President for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1992.
- 3. The applicant was his own witness and the respondent chose to_ produce Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq an Advocate on their behalf.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Employee came to be involved in a case of criminal breach of trust, but was acquitted by Special Court giving him benefit of doubt‑‑‑Employee who was dismissed from service, made application to employer Bank for his reinstatement, but his application was finally rejected‑‑‑Employee after final rejection of his application for his reinstatement and after approaching higher Authorities, filed grievance petition long after prescribed period‑‑‑Employee having failed to carry out requirements of S.25‑A(1) of Ordinance, 1969, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed being barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 20th October, 1992. This appeal from the order of the Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the application of the appellant filed under section 25‑A of the IRO arises in the following circumstances:‑‑ It is alleged that the appellant started his career in the Bank peon and was later promoted as a clerk sometime in 1972. He came to be involved in a case of criminal breach of trust in a sum of Rs.60, 191, in the middle of 1978 wherein he came to be acquitted on 27‑12‑1985 by the Special Court (Offences) Banking Court, Karachi. He made an application to the Bank for reinstatement and also, to many other higher authorities including the Governor and Chief Minister, and finally having heard from the Bank as per letter dated 24‑12‑1989 that he could not be reinstated, he sent the grievance notice on 3‑3‑1990 and later on filed the petition.
2. In the Written Reply it alleged that the petitioner had been dismissed from the service of the Bank in March 1979 and had been told repeatedly that his request for reinstatement could not be considered even after acquittal in the criminal case wherein he was given‑ benefit of doubt. It went on to say that the petitioner had sent a letter earlier on 5‑4‑1979 to the Vice‑President of the respondent‑Bank requesting to withdraw his dismissal letter and it was replied to by him on the 23rd of April, 1979. The petition was therefore time‑barred.
3. The applicant was his own witness and the respondent chose to_ produce Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq an Advocate on their behalf.
4. The learned Presiding Officer coming to the conclusion that the petition filed by the appellant was time‑barred dismissed the petition,
5. The respondents for reasons best known to themselves did not examine anybody from the Bank nor cared to put on record the order of dismissal which appears to have been passed after holding of an enquiry. However, they got the reprieve because the merit of the case was not touched and the appeal fails on the point of limitation.
6. The appellant in his cross‑examination admits the despatch of letters to the President of the United Bank, dated 17‑3‑1986 and 20‑12‑1988. He also admits the receipt of the letter of the Bank dated 6‑2‑1990 which mentions dismissal on 29‑3‑1979 and other admissions made by the appellant. It also contains other communications and the refusal of the Bank to reconsider its order of dismissal.
7. Admittedly the appellant had not drawn any pay from the Bank from the date of his dismissal. Rightly or wrongly he had been dismissed from service. He would have seen to it that he carried out all the requirements under section 25‑A(1) of the I.R.O. which gave a period of 5‑1/2 months altogether. For all these years from 1979 onwards, he evinced no interest, till it was too late. In the result I will uphold the order of dismissal and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2107/Lb.S Appeal dismissed