1988 PLP 966 (PLC(CS))
ASHIQ HUSSAIN Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 966 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ASHIQ HUSSAIN Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 966 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 966 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 966 (PLC(CS)) (ASHIQ HUSSAIN Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑Workman dismissed from service on charge of embezzlement‑‑Facing criminal trial also‑‑Re‑instatement awarded by Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal against decision of Labour Court on grievance petition against dismissal‑ Employer in pursuance of order of Appellate Tribunal re‑instating and sending notice to workman for resumption of duty‑‑Workman receiving notice while undergoing imprisonment as a result of conviction in criminal trial and informing employer about his inability to resume duty‑‑Employer terminating services on ground that post could not be kept vacant for indefinite period and such termination not challenged‑‑Workman after release from prison making petition to Appellate Tribunal for direction to employer to take him on duty in pursuance of earlier order‑‑Earlier order, in circumstances, held, had been complied with by employer by re‑instating workman and sending him notice for resumption of duty‑‑No further direction could be issued and in presence of subsequent termination order the petition was misconceived. Dale of hearing: 29th September, 1987.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑Workman dismissed from service on charge of embezzlement‑‑Facing criminal trial also‑‑Re‑instatement awarded by Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal against decision of Labour Court on grievance petition against dismissal‑ Employer in pursuance of order of Appellate Tribunal re‑instating and sending notice to workman for resumption of duty‑‑Workman receiving notice while undergoing imprisonment as a result of conviction in criminal trial and informing employer about his inability to resume duty‑‑Employer terminating services on ground that post could not be kept vacant for indefinite period and such termination not challenged‑‑Workman after release from prison making petition to Appellate Tribunal for direction to employer to take him on duty in pursuance of earlier order‑‑Earlier order, in circumstances, held, had been complied with by employer by re‑instating workman and sending him notice for resumption of duty‑‑No further direction could be issued and in presence of subsequent termination order the petition was misconceived. Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Petitioner. Dale of hearing: 29th September, 1987. This is an appeal/petition for direction to the respondent to take the appellant/petitioner back on duty in pursuance of judgment, dated 11‑7‑1984 of this Tribunal.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner was dismissal from service on the charge of embezzlement and a criminal case wits also brought against him. His grievance petition for reinstatement was dismissed but appeal was accepted and the appellant/plainer was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent reinstated the appellant/petitioner in compliance with the order of this Tribunal and sent notice to him to resume duty. The appellant/petitioner was in ail serving 2 years' awarded to him in the embezzlement case. The appellant/pctilioner informed the respondent to the effect that he on account of serving punishment was not in a position to resume duty and requested for deferring the resumption of his duty. The respondent vide order dated 10‑9‑1984 terminated the service of the appellant/petitioner on the ground that the post could not be kept vacant for indefinite period. The appellant/petitioner did not challenge this order. Since the order dated 11‑7‑1984 recorded by this Tribunal was complied with by reinstating the appellant/petitioner and directing him to resume duty, no further direction can be issued. In the presence of the order of termination from service no direction to the respondent can be issued to take back the appellant/petitioner on duty. The appeal/petition being misconceived is filed. A.E./421/Lb.P' Petition filed