2006 PLP 1794 (SCMR)
PRESIDENT, ALLIED BANK LTD. and others — Petitioners Versus SHAUKAT NASEEM — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1794 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PRESIDENT, ALLIED BANK LTD. and others — Petitioners Versus SHAUKAT NASEEM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1794 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1794 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1794 (SCMR) (PRESIDENT, ALLIED BANK LTD. and others — Petitioners Versus SHAUKAT NASEEM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Basit Baber Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order, dated 9-12-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in R.F.A. No.25 of 2003).
Art. 185(3)
Lack of jurisdiction of Labour Court
Respondent, an employee of Bank was dismissed from service and was directed to settle his final dues through Regional. Office of the Bank at "B"
Grievance petition filed by respondent was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction-Regular First Appeal filed by respondent was allowed by High Court through impugned judgment, with the direction to the parties to appear before Labour Court at "B"
Contention of petitioner Bank was that at the time of dismissal, respondent being posted at place within the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court at place `M', Labour Court at place `B' lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition of respondent and to adjudicate upon the matter
Branch of Bank in which respondent was posted was under Regional Office of Bank at place `B' which fell within jurisdiction of Labour Court at place `B'
Respondent was also directed to settle his final dues through Regional Office of Bank at place `B', where a part of cause of action had arisen
High Court, in circumstances, was justified in holding that Labour Court at place `B' possessed necessary territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter--Impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court
Case being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed. Respondent in Person.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner-Allied Bank of Pakistan, seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 9-12-2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in R.F.A. No.25 of 2003.
2. The respondent, an employee of the Allied Bank of Pakistan, was dismissed from service of the Bank, by letter dated 25-1-2002. He was directed to settle his final dues through the Regional Office of the Bank at Bahawalpur. The respondent challenged his dismissal from service by way of filing a petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, which was dismissed by order, dated 25-2-2003, for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, he preferred R.F.A. No.25 of 2003 which was allowed, by the impugned judgment, dated 9/12-2004, by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench with the direction to the parties to appear before the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submitted that at the time of his dismissal the respondent was posted at Lodhran falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab Labour Court at Multan. Therefore, the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the respondent and to adjudicate upon the matter.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent in person. The respondent brought to our notice that Lodhran Branch of the Bank was under the Regional Office of the Bank at Bahawalpur and that he also remained posted at Bahawalpur which fell within the jurisdiction of the Punjab Labour Court No.8, 'Bahawalpur. Not only that the respondent was directed through the letter of dismissal to settle his final dues through the Regional Office of the Bank at Bahawalpur where a part of cause of action had arisen. In these circumstances, the learned High Court was justified in holding that the Punjab Labour Court No.8 was possessed the necessary territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The assumption of jurisdiction of a Labour Court over the subject-matter had not been called in question. In our opinion, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./P-10/SC Petition dismissed.