2012 PLP 136 (SCMR)
GUL MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus M.C.B. BANK LIMITED through President and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 136 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus M.C.B. BANK LIMITED through President and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 136 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 136 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 136 (SCMR) (GUL MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus M.C.B. BANK LIMITED through President and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. 196 of 2009).
- Abdul Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 197 of 2009).
- Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. 197 of 2009).
- Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 196 of 2009).
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal against the judgment of Islamabad High Court Islamabad dated 1-12-2008 passed in Labour Appeal No.22 of 2005).
S. 5
Appeal filed by appellant was barred by 21 days and condonation of delay was sought on the ground that copy of judgment was transmitted to appellant 15 days after announcement of the judgment
Judgment was announced by High Court on 1-12-2008 in open court and it was not the case of appellant that either it was not represented at the time of announcement of the judgment or was unaware of the same until it had received a copy of judgment on 16-12-2008
Time of limitation to impugn a judgment started running from the date the same was announced
In case of delay, the parties had to expressly state and show that they were unaware of the pronouncement of the judgment
Supreme Court declined to condone the delay in circumstances
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, J.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2009, Gul Muhammad, former Grade-III officer in the Muslim Commercial Bank, Regional Office, Islamabad, was dismissed from service on the allegation that he had credited in his own account Rs.5,400 deposited by a customer of the Bank. He filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court. After recording the evidence, the Court found that the dismissal of the appellant was not warranted, as the deposit of the account in question in his personal account may have been on account of some error. The Court, however, converted the order of dismissal into compulsorily retirement from service. This order was challenged before the Islamabad High Court in appeals by the appellant as well as the Bank. Rejecting the argument on behalf of the Bank that the appellant was not a 'workman', the Court upheld the order of the Labour Court. Leave to appeal was granted to Ghulam Muhammad as well as the Bank.
2. Leave was granted to the Bank subject to determination of the question of limitation that was to be decided at the time of the hearing of the appeal. The petition filed by the Bank was barred by 21 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the Bank has stated that though the judgment of the High Court was announced on 1-12-2008, the same was transmitted to the Bank on 16-12-2008. Such explanation for condonation of delay is untenable in law. The judgment was announced on 1-12-2008 in open Court. It is not the case of the Bank that either they were not represented at the time of the announcement of the judgment or were unaware of the same, until they received a copy of the judgment on 16-12-2008. The time of limitation to impugn a judgment runs from the date the same is announced. In case of delay the parties have to expressly state and show that they were unaware of the pronouncement of the judgment. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, Appeal No. 197 of 2009 filed by the Bank is dismissed as barred by time.
3. In view of dismissal of the above said appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2009 did not press the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. M.H./G-16/SC Appeal dismissed.