1995 PLP 166 (PLC)
SHAKEELUDDIN Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI through its Provincial Chief
| Citation | 1995 PLP 166 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHAKEELUDDIN Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI through its Provincial Chief |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 166 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 166 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 166 (PLC) (SHAKEELUDDIN Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI through its Provincial Chief). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1994.
- In this appeal the suspension order of applicant Shakeeluddin by his employer Bank, maintained by the Labour Court has been challenged. The appellant was a Grade‑III Officer in the Habib Bank Limited. Police arrested him in a bank robbery case and he was suspended by the respondent‑Bank. After his release on bail he was temporarily allowed to work but shortly afterwards he was again suspended pending decision by the Court of Law. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for Shakeeluddin has argued that the suspension by the Bank without a charge‑sheet was bad and that a Bank Officer is a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance and he should, therefore, be reinstated and given all the benefits. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to produce any authority that an officer in the Bank comes under the definition of workman doing manual or clerical work. In my opinion. Bank Officer cannot be designated as a workman. As regards the order of suspension there are authorities to show that an appointing authority has inherent power to pass Interim Order of suspension. Mere fact that the order of suspension was temporarily withdrawn cannot vitiate the subsequent order of suspension for a second time. Suspension is not a penalty which cannot be awarded in the absence of a charge‑sheet.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Workman‑‑‑Bank Officer, could not be designated as a workman. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Suspension‑‑‑Employee who was a Bank Officer was arrested in a Bank robbery case and due to his arrest he was suspended by the Bank‑‑‑After release of employee on bail he was temporarily allowed to work, but shortly afterwards he was again suspended pending decision of Court of law‑‑‑Appointing Authority had inherent power to pass interim order of suspension‑‑‑Mere fact that order of suspension was temporarily withdrawn, could not vitiate subsequent order of suspension for second time‑‑ Suspension not being a penalty, could be awarded in absence of a charge sheet.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Workman‑‑‑Bank Officer, could not be designated as a workman. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Suspension‑‑‑Employee who was a Bank Officer was arrested in a Bank robbery case and due to his arrest he was suspended by the Bank‑‑‑After release of employee on bail he was temporarily allowed to work, but shortly afterwards he was again suspended pending decision of Court of law‑‑‑Appointing Authority had inherent power to pass interim order of suspension‑‑‑Mere fact that order of suspension was temporarily withdrawn, could not vitiate subsequent order of suspension for second time‑‑ Suspension not being a penalty, could be awarded in absence of a charge sheet. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1994. In this appeal the suspension order of applicant Shakeeluddin by his employer Bank, maintained by the Labour Court has been challenged. The appellant was a Grade‑III Officer in the Habib Bank Limited. Police arrested him in a bank robbery case and he was suspended by the respondent‑Bank. After his release on bail he was temporarily allowed to work but shortly afterwards he was again suspended pending decision by the Court of Law. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for Shakeeluddin has argued that the suspension by the Bank without a charge‑sheet was bad and that a Bank Officer is a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance and he should, therefore, be reinstated and given all the benefits. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to produce any authority that an officer in the Bank comes under the definition of workman doing manual or clerical work. In my opinion. Bank Officer cannot be designated as a workman. As regards the order of suspension there are authorities to show that an appointing authority has inherent power to pass Interim Order of suspension. Mere fact that the order of suspension was temporarily withdrawn cannot vitiate the subsequent order of suspension for a second time. Suspension is not a penalty which cannot be awarded in the absence of a charge‑sheet.
2. The order of the learned Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is summarily dismissed. H.B.T./2391/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.