1991 PLP 789 (PLC)
ABDUR REHMAN Versus ZONAL CHIEF, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, LAHORE
| Citation | 1991 PLP 789 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN Versus ZONAL CHIEF, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 789 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 789 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 789 (PLC) (ABDUR REHMAN Versus ZONAL CHIEF, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Masood for Petitioner.
- Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th June, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 37 & 38‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Res judicata‑‑ Petitioner, who was an officer Grade‑III in Bank having remained unsuccessful in questioning legality of his dismissal order for his gross misconduct in earlier round of litigation up to High Court, had endeavoured to reagitate the same in instant Constitution petition through second round of litigation six months subsequent to dismissal of earlier one urging that copy of inquiry report was not furnished to him‑‑‑Subsequent Constitution petition being hit by doctrine of res judicata was dismissed as such on that ground because piecemeal reactivation‑ of causes was not permissible.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A, 37 & 38
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Res judicata-- Petitioner, who was an officer Grade-III in Bank having remained unsuccessful in questioning legality of his dismissal order for his gross misconduct in earlier round of litigation up to High Court, had endeavoured to reagitate the same in instant Constitution petition through second round of litigation six months subsequent to dismissal of earlier one urging that copy of inquiry report was not furnished to him
Subsequent Constitution petition being hit by doctrine of res judicata was dismissed as such on that ground because piecemeal reactivation- of causes was not permissible. Mushtaq Masood for Petitioner. Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th June, 1991. Petitioner, formerly an officer Grade-III of the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited having been unsuccessful in questioning legality of his dismissal ordered on 22-4-1982 for gross misconduct in the earlier round of litigation before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal by virtue of grievance petition contemplated by section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as well as in Constitutional Petition No. 5714/84 for his not being a workman, has endeavoured to reagitate the same by resorting to the present petition through second round of litigation six months subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier one urging that copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to him which, I am afraid, is hit by the doctrine of res judicata and is accordingly hereby dismissed on this short ground alone because piecemeal reactivation of causes is not permissible, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. H.B.T./A-1389/L Petition dismissed.