1989 PLP 724 (PLC)
ANIS ALI REHMANI Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED
| Citation | 1989 PLP 724 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ., and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J |
| Parties | ANIS ALI REHMANI Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED |
| Primary Law | United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1971‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 724 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1971‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 724 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ., and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 724 (PLC) (ANIS ALI REHMANI Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Muzaffarul Haq for Petitioner.
- Khalid Saeed Ibrahim for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: November 14th 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑R.16(iv)(b)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Scope of Constitutional jurisdiction in matters not governed by statutory Rules‑‑Bank employee‑ Termination of service‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction against wrongful dismissal from service‑‑Competency‑‑United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1971 framed by Executive Board of the Bank being not statutory Rules, their violation cannot be assailed through Constitutional petition‑‑Where employee of Bank was terminated in accordance with Rules which were not statutory in nature he could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court even if such termination of service was illegal‑‑Employee would at the most be entitled to claim damages for wrongful termination of service. Inayatullah Narejo v. The United Bank Limited of Pakistan and 7 others 1988 C L C 1446 ret.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This petition is directed against the termination of service by the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not even served with the notice of termination. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that they had served one month's notice as per rule and the termination of service is simpliciter. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Inayatullah Narejo v. The United Bank Limited of Pakistan and 7 others reported A in 1988 C L C 1446, has held that the United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1971, framed by Executive Board of the Bank, are not Statutory Rules, and therefore, their violation cannot be assailed through a Constitutional petition. The above judgment is binding on us, and therefore, the above petition is not competent in the absence of violation of any Statutory Rules. It was then contended by Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of paragraph 16(iv)(h) that factually the petitioner was not served with any notice at all, and therefore, the termination of service was illegal. It will suffice to observe that at the most the petitioner will be entitled to claim damages for wrongful termination of service. The above petition is misconceived and therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs, A.A./A‑550/L Writ refused