1988 PLP 1559 (SCMR)
HABIB BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1559 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rehman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1559 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1559 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rehman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1559 (SCMR) (HABIB BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Asghar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.M.Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988.
- Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Asghar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.M.Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22-2-1988 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.5097 of 1984).
S.O.15(2)(iv)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199- Bank employee--Misconduct--Dismissal from service set aside on ground that employer had not produced Inquiry Officer before Labour Court in evidence so as to provide an opportunity to employee to cross examine him and this omission had resulted in vitiation of proceedings--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether employer was in law bound to examine the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court as its own witness so as to give an opportunity to the employee to cross-examine hiss for establishing his contention that the statements of three witnesses were recorded in his absence.
Judgment & Decree
Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Asghar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.M.Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑Respondent No.1 herein was dismissed from service for misconduct as he attempted to get an interest‑free loan of Rs.40,000 from the Bank for the purchase of a house on the basis of fake document purporting to be a sale‑deed of a house which, in fact, did not exist. It was during the scrutiny of the case that this fact transpired. An inquiry was, accordingly, held and he was found guilty of misconduct. He approached the Labour Court through an application for his reinstatement and back benefits, but did not succeed as the petition was dismissed on 31‑10‑1977. On appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, this order was set aside on the grounds: firstly, because the Bank was not, in fact, deceived in the absence of sanction of advance; and, secondly, that the petitioner had failed to produce the Inquiry Officer before the Punjab Labour Court in evidence so as to provide an opportunity to cross‑examine him and this omission resulted in the vitiation of the proceedings. The High Court in writ jurisdiction did not accept the first ground but agreed with the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the second ground. Leave was sought on the ground, whether the petitioner was in law bound to examine the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court as its own witness so as to give an opportunity to the respondent to cross‑examine him for establishing his contention that the statements of three witnesses were recorded in his absence. Leave to appeal is granted as this question requires consideration. Security for costs Rs.2,
500. As the respondent was reinstated, therefore, no interim order is called for. The appeal arising from the petition shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The appeal should be listed for hearing within six months. M.I./H‑41/S Leave granted.