1989SCMR661 (PLP)
THE GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus Rai ABDUL RAZZAQUE KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR661 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus Rai ABDUL RAZZAQUE KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)., (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR661 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)., (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR661 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR661 (PLP) (THE GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus Rai ABDUL RAZZAQUE KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and A.Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1988.
- Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and A.Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 7-4-1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Intra-Court Appeal No.15/1979).
S.47(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal was granted to consider the scope and ambit of subsection (2) of S.47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance,1969.
S. 47(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Order of interim nature- Enuring of--Such order would entire till conclusion of proceedings involving industrial dispute--Industrial dispute between parties having been resolved, interim order lapsed and appeal thus became infructuous and dismissed. Ex parte: Respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, CJ.‑‑Respondent No.3, at the relevant time, was the President of the Grindlays Bank Employees Union. He was, upon inquiry, found guilty of wilful insubordination and wilful interference in the affairs of the management, and was accordingly issued a show‑cause notice on 16th of June, 1976, but his explanation contained in the reply to it was not accepted.‑The Chief Area Manager of the appellant also heard him in person and upheld the finding by order dated 3rd of July, 1976, and instead of dismissal imposed a lesser penalty of demotion from the post of Assistant to that of a Clerk. Before the passing of this order, an industrial dispute had already been raised with the management in regard to which the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, Rawalpindi. The appellant on 8th of July, 1976, moved an application before the said Court under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking its permission to implement the order of demotion. The Labour Court, however, after some inquiry, refused permission to the appellant to implement the order. Against this order, the appellant invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, but did not succeed as the petition was dismissed on 21st of November, 1978. The Intra‑Court Appeal against this order also met the same fate as it was dismissed by order dated 7th of April, 1979. Leave was accordingly granted to consider the scope and abmit of subsection (2) of section 47 of the Ordinance. However, we are informed that the industrial dispute has already been resolved. The order by the Labour Court and upheld by the High Court was of an interim nature which enured till the conclusion of the proceedings involving the industrial dispute. In that view of the matter, the order lapsed with the resolution of the dispute and the appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as such, but with no order as to costs. AA./G‑158/S Appeal dismissed.