1994 PLP 446 (PLC)
THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (OPERATIONS), BANK OF OMAN LIMITED, DEIRA, DUBAI (U.A.E.) and another Versus Sheikh SALAH‑UD‑DIN
| Citation | 1994 PLP 446 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (OPERATIONS), BANK OF OMAN LIMITED, DEIRA, DUBAI (U.A.E.) and another Versus Sheikh SALAH‑UD‑DIN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 446 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 446 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 446 (PLC) (THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (OPERATIONS), BANK OF OMAN LIMITED, DEIRA, DUBAI (U.A.E.) and another Versus Sheikh SALAH‑UD‑DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javed Shaukat Malik for Appellants.
- Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 13th and 14th February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Competency of‑‑‑Appeal filed by employer against decision of Court was not signed by employee himself, but was signed by persons who were authorised to sign by an officer who was responsible for management, supervision and control of employers establishment‑‑‑Officer who authorised persons to sign appeal and other documents like Vakalatnama etc. by all means being "employer" appeal signed by persons duly nominated by him to do so, would not suffer from any legal defect and was competent and could not be dismissed merely on ground that same was not signed by employer himself. National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1993 SCMR 105 and Ahmad Khan v. Municipal, Committee and others 1986 PLC 978 ref. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Employee who was originally appointed as Officer Grade‑III in a foreign Bank in Pakistan, later on was appointed as Officer in the Bank abroad on fresh terms and conditions‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated there and he without any protest received all his services‑end benefits and all dues on release from Bank certifying that nothing was outstanding against the Bank‑‑‑Employee after about one year from termination of his services challenged same in Pakistan by filing grievance petition‑‑‑Terms and conditions of employment abroad were different from earlier appointment in Pakistan and his service abroad was quite distinct from his service in Pakistan having no continuity and nexus with each other‑‑ Employee having received all his services‑end benefits and all dues vide receipt without any protest, was not an aggrieved person because if he had any grievance about his termination, he would have brought it to notice of employers within prescribed period of three months‑‑‑Employee who having failed to do so, could not legally challenge his termination‑‑‑Decision of Court below directing employer to reinstate employee in service, was illegal and could not be upheld. Grindlays Bank (Lloyds Branch) Employees' Union v. Registrar, Trade Unions and another 1980 PLC 800 (i) and Muhammad Ali v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1978 Kar. 649 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Basic Salary ... Pak Rs.1,300.00 House Allowance ... 600.00 Conveyance Allowance ... 250.00 Medical Allowance ... 100.00 Total. ... Pak Rs.2,250.00
11. On 20th of January, 1981 he was employed as an Officer in the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch, Qatar on different terms and conditions as laid down in the Employment Agreement Deed (Exh.P‑2/1) which runs as under:‑‑ "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DEED We hereby confirm and appoint Mr. Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din s/o Mr. Sh. All‑ud‑Din holder of. Pakistani Passport No.AJ‑139239 as an Officer under the following terms and conditions:‑ (1) Monthly salary QR.1,740 (2) Overtime, fringes and other According to local labour benefits. law. (3) Accommodation Free furnished by sponsor. (4) Food ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (5) Duty Hours Eight hours only. (6) Holidays According to local Govern ment announcement and Friday off. (7) Leave Annual leave for one, month with salary to be availed annually. (8) Air passage. Free air passage for both sides annually. (9) Medical, transport, insurance According to local Labour disability, compensation etc. Law. (10) Repatriation arrangements includ‑ Responsibility of the ing return of deed body and the sponsor. services benefits to the legal heir of the employee. (11) The employee will not be repatriated during the period of this contract without reference to Embassy of Pakistan. The above contract is initially for a period of one year and will be considered renewed for another year, unless terminated earlier by either party, giving in writing at least one month's notice of such termination."
12. From the above two documents, it is manifest that the service of the respondent at Qatar was quite distinct from his service at Lahore, having no continuity and nexus with each other. One organization can have two or more different establishments. This is recognised by law, as held in Grindlays Bank (Lloyds Branch) Employees' Union v. Registrar, Trade Unions and another 1980 PLC 800(i), Muhammad Ali v, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another (PLD 1978. Kar. 649) and Messrs Ehsan Sons v. Abdul Razzaq Habib and others (1987 PLC 491). Since the service of tie respondent at Qater was to be governed by the labour laws of that place according to the Employment Agreement Deed (Exh. P‑2/1), he cannot legitimately invoke the provisions of Standing Order 14 in respect of that service.
13. Assuming that the establishment at Lahore and that at Qatar are one and the same and Standing Order 14 enures to the respondent also, even then he has no case. His grievance is that one Muhammad Ashraf was appointed within one year of the termination of his services but he was not recalled. The letter of appointment of Muhammad Ashraf is Exh. P.8. It shows that he was appointed with effect from 1st of July, 1986 as a Clerk. The respondent, however, was an officer both at Lahore as well as at Qatar. The category of an officer and that of a clerk are entirely different. Therefore, the appointment of Muhammad Ashraf did not furnish the respondent with any cause of action.
14. The other findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in favour of the respondent have not been assailed by learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned decision directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service on the basis of Standing Order 14 cannot be upheld.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted, the impugned decision is set aside and the grievance petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. As a result concomitant, the appeal preferred by the respondent for back benefits is dismissed. H.B.T./768/Lb.P Order accordingly.