1995SCMR41 (PLP)
STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMAMD AKHTAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR41 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Act& CJ. And Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMAMD AKHTAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR41 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR41 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Act& CJ. And Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR41 (PLP) (STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMAMD AKHTAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1994.
- 3. In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned Single Judge after assuming jurisdiction not only set aside the orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 but also directed the reinstatement of the respondent with all back benefits without considering the report of the inquiry officer. It was also contended that the question raised in this petition as to whether the employees of the petitioner are to be governed by the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations and the Standing Orders or the Wage Commission Award, requires consideration.
- 4. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner we grant leave to consider, inter alia, whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right to declare the impugned orders of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 having been passed without lawful authority and further to direct reinstatement of the respondent in service and thereby substituting his own decision‑for that of the competent authority in the matter.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16‑2‑1994, in W.P.1745/1983). Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Scope of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Dismissal of employee of State Bank of Pakistan on charge of misappropriation of specified amount‑‑‑Employee's grievance application as also his appeal against this dismissal did not bear fruit in Labour forums‑‑‑High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order of dismissal and directed employee's reinstatement in service with back benefits‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, whether High Court was right to declare orders in question, of Labour forums having been passed without lawful authority and its direction for reinstatement of employee and thereby substituting its own decision for that of the competent authority in the matter.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore, the petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against order dated 16‑2‑1994. passed by the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.1745/1983.
2. Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, respondent was employed as Coin/Note Examiner in service of the petitioner. He was proceeded against departmentally on the allegation of misappropriation of notes valuing Rs.1,20,
000. As a result of inquiry he was found guilty and dismissed from service on 23‑5‑1977. He lodged a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was dismissed on 7‑6‑1979, by the Punjab Labour Court. He preferred an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but the same was also dismissed on 28‑2‑1983. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court through Writ Petition No. 1745/1983, which was accepted vide impugned order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned Single Judge after assuming jurisdiction not only set aside the orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 but also directed the reinstatement of the respondent with all back benefits without considering the report of the inquiry officer. It was also contended that the question raised in this petition as to whether the employees of the petitioner are to be governed by the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations and the Standing Orders or the Wage Commission Award, requires consideration.
4. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner we grant leave to consider, inter alia, whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right to declare the impugned orders of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 having been passed without lawful authority and further to direct reinstatement of the respondent in service and thereby substituting his own decision‑for that of the competent authority in the matter. AA./S‑884/S Leave granted.