1993 PLP 329 (PLC)
ZAFAR IQBAL ANJUM and others Versus CHAIRMAN, A.D.B.P.
| Citation | 1993 PLP 329 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Manan, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL ANJUM and others Versus CHAIRMAN, A.D.B.P. |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 329 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 329 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: S.A. Manan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 329 (PLC) (ZAFAR IQBAL ANJUM and others Versus CHAIRMAN, A.D.B.P.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.D. Chaudhary for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Posting of Bank employee‑‑‑Bank employees were posted in specific branch of the Bank to take necessary steps for recovery of loans in loan cases investigated/sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure‑‑ Petitioners being employees of the Bank, it was their duty to recover the loan amount as directed by the Bank‑‑‑Such direction was in no way in violation of any law‑‑‑Petitioners were duty bound to comply with the orders of employer and recover the required amount sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure‑‑‑No illegality in the direction of Bank deputing petitioners for said purpose was found.
Judgment & Decree
Posting of Bank employee‑‑‑Bank employees were posted in specific branch of the Bank to take necessary steps for recovery of loans in loan cases investigated/sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure‑‑ Petitioners being employees of the Bank, it was their duty to recover the loan amount as directed by the Bank‑‑‑Such direction was in no way in violation of any law‑‑‑Petitioners were duty bound to comply with the orders of employer and recover the required amount sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure‑‑‑No illegality in the direction of Bank deputing petitioners for said purpose was found. M.D. Chaudhary for Petitioners. All the twelve petitioners have filed this writ petition against the respondents for a direction that they are not supposed to carry out the orders of the respondent No. 1 dated 18‑8‑1992 by which the petitioners have been transferred and posted as Officers on recovery duty in Tandlianwala branch under Fasalabad Region.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioners sanctioned loan in favour of certain persons and the question came up for the recovery of the said amount from the loanees. For this an order was passed on 18‑8‑1992 that the petitioners should be posted in Tandlianwala to take necessary steps for the recovery of loan in loan cases investigated/sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure.
3. The petitioners have challenged the aforementioned order on the ground that they are not supposed to recover the amount nor they can be transferred and posted as recovery officers.
4. It is admitted by the learned counsel that all the petitioners are the employees of the respondent‑Bank, therefore, it is their duty to recover the loan amount as directed by the respondent‑Bank. It is admitted that several lacs are due from the debtors. The direction of the respondent in the names of petitioners to recover the amount is in‑no way in violation of any law. It is their duty to comply with the orders of the respondent‑Bank and recover the required amount sanctioned and recommended by them during their tenure. There is no illegality in the directions of respondent‑Bank deputing the petitioners for this purpose.
5. The writ petition has no merits which is dismissed in limine. A.A./Z‑48/L Petition dismissed.