2012 PLP 75 (PLC)
NAZIR AHMED GILL Versus HABIB BANK LTD. and 2 others
| Citation | 2012 PLP 75 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Ch. Shaukat Nawaz Goraya, Member |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED GILL Versus HABIB BANK LTD. and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 75 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 75 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Ch. Shaukat Nawaz Goraya, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 75 (PLC) (NAZIR AHMED GILL Versus HABIB BANK LTD. and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Waqar Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Faisal Mehmood Ghani for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25(8)(g)
Unfair labour practice by the employers
Employee who brought petition against alleged unfair labour practice by the employers, his services had already been terminated and his dues which were calculated, were credited in the account of the employee and he had withdrawn the same
Employee who was no more in service of the employers, no cause of action had remained available to him against the employers
Petition which had become infructuous, could not proceed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. SHAUKAT NAWAZ GORAYA (MEMBER).
The respondents had filed an application for dismissal of the petition. The copy was delivered to the learned counsel for the petitioner and case was adjourned for filing of the reply to the said application and hearing of arguments.
2. Reply to the application for dismissal of the petition has not been submitted. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that services of the petitioner have been terminated. In this regard he has placed termination letter with the written statement as Annex-R/6. The dues of the petitioner which were calculated to the tune of Rs.1,308,313 were credited in his Account. Later on out of this amount the petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,300,
000. The statement of accounts of the petitioner is Annex-R/12. It is stated by the learned counsel that after his termination the petitioner served a grievance notice upon the management of the respondent-Bank. The copy of the grievance notice is Annex.R/11.
3. In view of the aforementioned circumstances and the documents referred above it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner is no more in the service of the respondents. He assailed his relieving order through the instant petition filed on 3-3-2011. Since the petitioner is no more in service, therefore, no cause of action has remained available to him against the respondents. The petition has become infructuous and cannot proceed.
4. In view of what has been stated above, it is held that petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. There is no order as to costs. The file be consigned to the record room after due completion. H.B.T./19/NIRC Petition dismissed.