1995 PLP 6 (PLC)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus GHULAM MURTAZA
| Citation | 1995 PLP 6 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider. Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus GHULAM MURTAZA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 6 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 6 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider. Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 6 (PLC) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus GHULAM MURTAZA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmed for Appellants.
- Tauqir Hassan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, R.1‑‑‑Bank employee‑‑‑Termination of services‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑‑Plea that Bank in question being run by Federal Government it had its own statutory rules and that grievance application against termination of service was not maintainable‑‑‑Such plea was ritualistic in nature‑‑‑Statutory Rules viz. National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, were no longer in force‑‑‑Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition in such cases‑‑‑Bank employee being a permanent employee, his termination without hearing him could be adjudicated upon by Labour Court. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Bank employee‑‑‑Termination of services‑‑‑Entitlement to back benefits on reinstatement in service‑‑‑Assertion in grievance application that employee was rendered jobless as a result of termination of service‑‑ Establishment did not contest such assertion‑‑‑Employee was found entitled to back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No.7 at Sukkur, whereby the petition for reinstatement under section 25‑A of the IRO was allowed with back benefits. It arose in the following circumstances: The petitioner was appointed as a "Messenger" in the respondent Bank on 22‑5‑1990. On completing six months he was duly confirmed on 28‑1‑1991. However on the 25th of September 1991 his services came to be terminated on the receipt of an Office order which reads as follows:‑‑ "In terms of Government decision the services of Mr. Ghulam Murtaza son of Muhammad Moosa Qadri, Messenger NBP Rato Dero Branch, are terminated with immediate effect. He will be paid one month's substantive pay in lieu of his services terminated."
2. After settling the preliminaries the petitioner had presented the petition before the Labour Court.
3. One of the contentions raised before the Labour Court was that the respondent Bank was being run under the authority of the Federal Government. and had its own statutory rules. As a consequence the petition was not maintainable in the Labour Court. This contention was repelled.
4. The plea taken was ritualistic in nature and there is settled law by now that Labour Courts do come in. The statutory rules of 1973 do not exist and the termination of service as in the instant case is outside the pale of legal propriety and norm.
5. The respondent was a permanent employee and was eased off unheard on the basis of certain decisions taken by the Government. This simply could not be done under the yaw.
6. Ali Hassar Soomro who had appeared as a witness for the appellant had however added that the respondent was not eligible for appointment as on his own showing he would be over‑age at the time of appointment.
7. Firstly this was not the ground for removal as to be found in the aforesaid Office Order and secondly the authorities at the time of appointment could relax the limit. Ali Hassan Soomro had no inkling in the matter, whether it was so done or not.
8. The respondent had mentioned in the application that he had been rendered jobless as a result of the termination of his service. Issues had not been joined about it and there is no reason why it should be denied to him.
9. As a result the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. AA./2348/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.