2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another Versus ALI MUHAMMAD BANGASH
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another Versus ALI MUHAMMAD BANGASH |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another Versus ALI MUHAMMAD BANGASH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 7th January, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 6‑10‑2000 passed in Appeal No‑6(P) of 2000). ‑‑‑‑Ss.2‑A & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Respondent employed as Area Manager in State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, after termination of his service on account of unsatisfactory performance, was reinstated in service through compromise with an undertaking given by him that he would try his level best to achieve the business target, if his old staff was made available to him‑‑‑Petitioners after evaluating the performance of respondent for one year found the same unsatisfactory, thus, terminated his services‑‑‑Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of respondent on the ground that according to undertaking given by him, old staff had not been made available to him; he had been subjected to victimization; he had not been paid other entitlements, due to which the could not work 'with peace of mind; and that according to petitioners' Board decision performance of Area Manager had to be adjudged on the basis of three years' evaluation and not one year's performance as had been done in the present case‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Previous termination of services of respondent was got published by petitioners in newspapers informing public at large that they should not deal with him as employee of the petitioners, which obviously had consequence to render him helpless to earn the business, unless through another publication, the public was notified that he had been reinstated‑‑‑Publication of such notice in newspaper was an implied condition of the terms of reinstatement of the respondent‑‑‑Petitioners did not do so in spite of respondent's requests made in this behalf‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was either involved or made out in the petition, which was a case of personal grievance‑‑‑Question of fact had been decided by Service Tribunal, to which no exception could be taken ‑‑‑Petitioners undertook that respondent would be provided those available members of staff, out of the staff originally attached with him; and that public notice would be issued in newspapers throughout the country that respondent was an employee of the petitioners and he could deal with its business‑‑‑If said conditions were fulfilled and other dues of respondent were paid during the service, then petitioners might according to rules and regulations, evaluate his performance of three years hereafter and then if necessary, proceed against him in accordance with Law‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed the petition subject to said observations. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against judgment dated 6‑10‑2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal through which appeal filed by the respondent against his removal from service has been accepted.
2. Respondent was working with the petitioners as Area Manager when his services were terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance. However, subsequently through a compromise, he was reinstated in service through their appointment letter dated 21‑3‑1997 with an undertaking given by him that he would try his level best to achieve the business of Rs.18,00,000 first year premium, in case his old staff, which had since been transferred and posted at Kohat, was made available to him.
3. It appears from the show‑cause notice that performance of the respondent was evaluated only for the year 1998 and it was found that as against required business of Rs.18,00,000 he had only earned an amount of Rs.65.569, therefore, on this shot ground, his services were terminated after issuing him show‑cause notice and obtaining his reply.
4. We have gone through the reply to the said show‑cause notice, in which the respondent had raised a number of questions and grievances as regards non‑payment of legal dues and office expenses etc.
5. Respondent filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against order of termination of his service, which has been accepted through the impugned order on the ground that, according to undertaking given by the respondent, old staff, which had been posted at Kohat, was not made available to respondent and the respondent was subjected to victimization. He was not paid his other entitlements and it was made impossible for him to work against the post with peace of mind.
6. It was also observed that according to the petitioner's own case highlighted in the order, through which his departmental appeal was dismissed, according to the Board decision performance of Area Managers was to be adjudged on the basis of three years' performance and not one year's performance as had been done in this case.
7. We have also observed that previous termination of the services of the respondent was got published by the petitioners in the newspapers informing pubic at large that they should not deal with him as employee of the petitioners, which obviously had consequence, to render him helpless to earn the business, unless through another publication; the pubic was notified that the respondent had been reinstated. But it was not done though the respondent requested the petitioners to do so.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was nowhere a condition in the undertaking submitted by the respondent that the petitioners shall notify his reinstatement through newspapers.
9. The contention, in our considered view has no force. It was not necessary to incorporate in the terms of reinstatement of the respondent that the petitioners shall notify through newspapers to the public that they could deal with the respondent for it was an implied condition, which should have been satisfied by publication of notice in newspapers that the respondent had been reinstated in service of the petitioners.??????????
10. No question of law of public importance is either involved or made out in this petition. It is a case of personal grievance and a question of fact has been decided by Service Tribunal to which no exception can be taken.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to proceed against the respondent on the basis of evaluation of three years' performance, which course may be kept open.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, undertakes that respondent shall be provided those available members of staff, out of the staff originally attached with him, for, some of them may have left the service or retired or otherwise promoted to higher posts. He also undertakes that a public notice shall be issued in the newspapers throughout the country that the respondent was an employee of the petitioners and he can deal with the business of the petitioner.
13. In case the said conditions are fulfilled and other dues of the respondent are paid during the service, the petitioners may according to rules and regulations evaluate performance of the respondent of three years hereafter and thereafter, if necessary, proceed in accordance with law.
14. This petition has no merits, which is hereby dismissed subject to above observation. S.A.K./C-52/S Petition dismissed.