1990 PLP 592 (PLC)
HABIB BANK LIMITED Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1990 PLP 592 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 592 (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 1990 PLP 592 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 592 (PLC) (HABIB BANK LIMITED Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Rashid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑ Reinstatement of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Finding of fact recorded by Tribunal after proper appraisal of evidence, held, not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction‑‑‑Writ petition dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdul Rashid for Petitioner. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the judgment dated 2‑2‑1988 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the petitioner directed against the decision dated 18‑2‑1985 of the Punjab Labour Court No. V, Faisalabad, was dismissed, whereby respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service on the allegation that in the scroll the electricity charges were mentioned less by Rs.236.99 and thus he misappropriated the said amount.
3. Respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court for the redress of his grievance under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, set aside the dismissal order and directed respondent No. 1 to be reinstated in service without back benefits. On appeal, the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, after re -appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that failure to mention the correct electricity charges in the scroll, that is to say Rs.2,425.75 instead of Rs.2,662.74, was due to mistake and not by way of misappropriation and accordingly dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the Labour Court reinstating respondent No. 1 in service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate that production of electricity bill, WAPDA scroll and receipt register was not necessary because respondent No. 1 during the enquiry admitted that he entered Rs.2,425.75 in the WAPDA scroll and issued receipt for Rs.2,662.74 and did not deny that the amount entered in the cash receipt register was Rs.2,425.75. Learned counsel also submitted that the Labour Appellate Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents on record particularly the writing dated 5‑6‑1983 (Exh. R/13) accepting the charge by respondent No. 1.
5. I am afraid, the grievance raised by the petitioner relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. A finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal after proper appraisal of the evidence that it was a case of mistake and not mis‑appropriation. This finding of fact is not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. SA./H‑126/L Petition dismissed.