1999 PLP 302 (PLC)

The petitioner No. l is a Banking Company whereas petitioner No.2 is a Manager of the Emirates Bank, Lahore. Respondent No.1 was an employee of the petitioners who joined service with the petitioners in September, 1991 and was promoted as Assistant Manager of the Bank in 1996. The respondent No.1 was dismissed from service of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 30‑6‑1997. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for reinstatement in service. By the impugned order dated 6‑7‑1998, the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore disposed of the petition of respondent No. l by treating respondent No. l as having resigned from service instead of dismissal from service. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 1‑8‑1998 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellant Tribunal.

2. The learned counsel for he petitioners argued that the impugned judgments could not be considered to be judgments in the eye of law as defined by section 2(9) and Order XLI, Rule 30, C.P.C. No reasons were given in support of the impugned judgments. It was further argued that neither the Punjab Labour Court nor the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal were empowered to convert the dismissal of service into that of resignation. It was contended that respondent No.1 was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It was lastly submitted that the petitioners were justified in passing the order of dismissal of the respondent No.1 without holding an inquiry as the relationship between the parties was that of master and servant which could not be interfered with by the Labour Court. The learned counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of Abdul Haq and another v. Muhammad-din and another (AIR 1923 Calcutta 311), G.M. Khan v. The Inspector‑General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 others 0(PLD 1971 Karachi 613), Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary. Education, Lahore and another (PLD 1971 SC 838), Imran Ullah v.‑The Crown (PLD 1954 FC 123), American Baptist Foreign Mission Society v. Amalanadhuni Pattabhiramayya (AIR 1919 Madras 685), Sheikh Haider Hussain and others v. Syed Ali Muhammad and others (AIR 1945 Allahabad 54), Dr. Kidar Nath Sharma and others v. Rathiram Mangli and others (AIR 1966 Punjab 321 (F.B.), Messrs Saqib Brothers and another v. Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan) Limited (1991 CLC 710) (Lahore), Ali Muhammad v. Rent Controller and Chief Commissioner, Karachi (PLD 1957 Karachi 204), Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1981 SC 224), Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others v. Syed Jamil Ahmed (1993 SCMR 346), Muhammad Umar Malik v. The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through its President, Karachi and 2 others (1995 SCMR 453), Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another (1994 SCMR 2232), Vassiliades v. Vassiliades and another (AIR 1945 PC 38), Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Zia‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi (1998 SCMR 60) and United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCMR 68).

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. l appearing at limine stage argued that the respondent No.1 was just an Assistant Manager who qualified to be a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab labour Court No.7, Gujranwala and others (1992 SCMR 1891). It was further argued that the concurrent findings of fact were recorded both by the Punjab Labour Court as well as by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which ordinarily did not call for interference by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and others v. The Christian Educational Endowment Trust, Lahore and other: (1988 SCMR 1164) and Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1991 SCMR 46).

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The dismissal of respondent No. l from service without holding an inquiry if upheld would have resulted in the permanent attachment of a stigma to the rest of the life of respondent No. l who would not have been in a position to get any suitable employment anywhere. Such an extreme penalty could not have been imposed by the petitioners without holding an inquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Nothing was brought on record to establish that respondent No. l did not fall in the category of workman or worker. In the case of National Bank of Pakistan (supra), a Bank Officer was treated to be a workman.

5. A Labour Court is empowered to pass just and proper order which seem to have been passed in this case. A Labour Court is not divested of the jurisdiction under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance even in a case of relationship of master and servant in order to safeguard the rights of the workmen guaranteed by the Industrial and Labour Laws. Reliance can be placed on the case of Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqub etc. (PLD 1978 SC 207). The impugned orders are based on sound principles of law, foster justice and equity, which do not call for any interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Apart from the hyper‑technicalities as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned orders are just and fair doing substantial justice. No injustice or loss would be caused to the petitioners as in any case the respondent No. l was not going to be in the service of the petitioners. It is not necessary for this Court to strike down every order even though it may be technically illegal. This Court may refuse to exercise the jurisdiction in appropriate cases where the impugned order are just and fair in the circumstances. Reference may be made to the cases of Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others (1997 SCMR 1901), Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351), Mirza Abdur Razzaq and others v. Niamat Ali and 4 others (1980 Law Notes SC 583), Messrs Khyber Tobacco Co. Ltd., Mardan v. Labour Union and another (PLD 1976 Peshawar (DB) (8), Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236), S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367) and Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (PLD 1991 SC 691).

7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./E‑15/L Petition dismissed.