2000SCMR1216 (PLP)
Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN and another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000SCMR1216 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi, |
| Parties | Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN and another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000SCMR1216 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000SCMR1216 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000SCMR1216 (PLP) (Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN and another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Rai M. Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-9-1998 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 204(P) and 205(P) of 1998).
S. 2-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Delay in filing appeal before Service Tribunal
Application for condonation of delay not decided by Service Tribunal
Effect
Petitions of the employees under S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were dismissed by Labour Court after insertion of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Appeals before Service Tribunal were filed with delay
Application for condonation of delay was not considered by Service Tribunal while dismissing said appeals
Order of Service Tribunal was set aside by Supreme Court and cases were remanded for decision on the applications for condonation of delay. Syed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 197 and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 92 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. 2-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Delay in filing appeal before Service Tribunal
Application for condonation of delay not decided by Service Tribunal
Effect
Petitions of the employees under S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were dismissed by Labour Court after insertion of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Appeals before Service Tribunal were filed with delay
Application for condonation of delay was not considered by Service Tribunal while dismissing said appeals
Order of Service Tribunal was set aside by Supreme Court and cases were remanded for decision on the applications for condonation of delay. Syed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 197 and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 92 ref. Khalid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Rai M. Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999. The services of the appellants in abovementioned appeals were terminated on 2-10-1996. They approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O. on 30-11-1996. It is not disputed that on 10th June, 1997 when section 2-A was inserted in Service Tribunal Act, 1973 their cases were pending before the Labour Court. According to appellants the Labour Court dismissed the petitions on 8-5-1998 with the direction to the appellants to approach the Service Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellants after dismissal of their cases by Labour Court instead of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal, filed review petitions before he Labour Court which was also dismissed and as such they could not claim condonation of delay having resorted to a misconceived remedy. Be that as it may, there is no denial of the fact that prior to the decision of this Court in cases of Saeed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C. reported in 1999 SCMR 197 and 1999 SCMR 92 respectively the view expressed by the Tribunal was that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act being prospective in operation, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in cases where termination of service of an employee had taken place prior to 10th June, 1997. This view was set aside by this Court in the abovementioned two cases and it was held that provisions of section 2-A are retrospective in its operation and applied to all cases where proceedings were pending before any Court on the date of insertion of section 2-A. The appellant had filed applications for condonation of delay in both the cases before the Service Tribunal, which it appears were not considered. We, therefore; allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal for decision on the applications for condonation and the cases 'in the light .of the above observations in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z-5/S Cases remanded