1990 PLP 1544 (SCMR)
RUSTAM ALI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1544 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RUSTAM ALI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banks Nationalization Act (XIX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1544 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banks Nationalization Act (XIX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1544 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1544 (SCMR) (RUSTAM ALI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7‑10‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 1621 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Bank Staff Service Rules, 1981‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Unauthorised absence from duty‑‑‑Termination of service of a Bank employee‑‑‑Employee's Constitutional petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that no law or statutory rule was violated and Staff Service Rules did not qualify as statutory rules nor was the employment of employee statutory‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Provision of S. 13, Banks Nationalization Act, 1974 preserves and protects the nature of employment and the terms and conditions on which it is enjoyed subject to certain statutory provisions which are not in dispute‑‑ Petitioner could not deny that Staff Service Rules made provision for passing of such an order as had been passed against employee‑‑‑There being no merit in petition, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner, an Officer earlier employed by one of the nationalized Banks‑‑respondent No. 1, seeks ]cave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑10‑1985 whereby the Constitution Petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner was employed as an officer in the Allied Bank of Pakistan and had rendered long service. He absented himself from duty on 20th November, 1982 and started submitting medical certificates asking for leave which was not granted to him. In March, 1983, he applied for voluntary retirement after rendering twenty‑rive years service. His request remained unattended and a termination order was handed over to him which is dated 19th of March, 1985 and he was treated as on unauthorised absence. He challenged this action by filing a Constitution Petition which was dismissed mainly on the ground that no law or statutory rule was violated and the Staff Rules did not qualify as the statutory rules nor was the employment of the Petitioner statutory.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that after the nationalization of banks the Executive Board controlled the employees and the members of the Board itself were appointed by the Government, therefore, the appointment of the Petitioner was to be taken as statutory, and he had a genuine grievance with regard to the termination of his employment.
4. The contention of the learned counsel could have some merit if a specific provision, namely section 13 of the Banks Nationalization Act 1974, had not made provision for it. That provision referred to by the learned Judge preserves and protects the nature of the employment and the terms and conditions on which it is enjoyed subject to certain statutory provisions which are not in dispute in the proceedings before us. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Staff Rules make provision for passing of such an order as has been passed in the case in hand. As regards the contention that there is a stigma with regard to unauthorised absence during the period after 20th November, 1982, all that can be said at this stage is that is a fact not denied by the Petitioner himself because he had not obtained proper leave. He had only made applications about it. There appears no merit and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./R‑129/S Leave refused.