1984 PLP 1291 (PLC(CS))
SHAUKAT ALI TAHIR Versus HABIB BANK LTD.
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1291 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI TAHIR Versus HABIB BANK LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1291 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1291 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1291 (PLC(CS)) (SHAUKAT ALI TAHIR Versus HABIB BANK LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Hussain Shah Bokhari for Appellant.
- Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 17th April, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Bank employee‑ Rules of Bank not Statutory rules‑No presumption that Bank employee knows them Accused charged for applying for marriage grant second time despite rejection of previous application‑No proof that intimation of rejec tion of previous application given to accused ‑ Contention that application was contrary to rules‑‑Rejected ‑Accused in circum st4nces, did not commit any misconduct, in asking for marriage grant for his marriage which was not his first marriage‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement without back benefits because of failure of petitioner (appellant) to look into relevant rules‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Bank employee‑ Rules of Bank not Statutory rules‑No presumption that Bank employee knows them Accused charged for applying for marriage grant second time despite rejection of previous application‑No proof that intimation of rejec tion of previous application given to accused ‑ Contention that application was contrary to rules‑‑Rejected ‑Accused in circum st4nces, did not commit any misconduct, in asking for marriage grant for his marriage which was not his first marriage‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement without back benefits because of failure of petitioner (appellant) to look into relevant rules‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3). Manzoor Hussain Shah Bokhari for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent. Date of hearing : 17th April, 1984. The decision, dated 28th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this appeal. The grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service has been dismissed by the impugned decision.
2. The appellant was a cashier‑cum‑clerk in the respondent bank. ‑ He applied for marriage grant filling in the required pro forma on 16th February, 1981 giving therein his date of marriage as 6th February, 1981. He was already a married person. It is alleged that previous to this also the appel lant had applied for marriage grant but it was refused on the ground that the grant could be allowed for the first marriage.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the previous application of the appellant had been rejected on the ground that the grant could be allowed for first marriage, the appellant by mention ing the date of his marriage in the 2nd application as 6th February, 1981 deceived the respondent and thus was rightly terminated. There is no evidence on the record that the appellant had been informed about the rejec tion of his previous application. It, therefore, does not stand established that the appellant knew that marriage grant could be allowed for firs marriage. The rules of. the respondent not being statutory, there is no presumption that the bank employees know them. The appellant thus did no commit any misconduct in asking for the marriage grant for his marriage which was not the first one.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of removal from service, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. He is not entitled to back benefits as he without taking the trouble of looking into the relevant rules applied for marriage grant without any right. A. E. Appeal accepted,