1987 PLP 336 (PLC)
SHABBIR AHMED Versus VICE‑PRESIDENT AND ZONAL CHIEF, U.B.L., HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1987 PLP 336 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | S. Rais Ahmad Jafri, Senior member, |
| Parties | SHABBIR AHMED Versus VICE‑PRESIDENT AND ZONAL CHIEF, U.B.L., HYDERABAD |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑, (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 336 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑, (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 336 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: S. Rais Ahmad Jafri, Senior member,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 336 (PLC) (SHABBIR AHMED Versus VICE‑PRESIDENT AND ZONAL CHIEF, U.B.L., HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L.Shahani for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 15 & 53‑‑Proceedings against employee‑‑Prayer of employee before Chairman .of Industrial Relations Commission for issuing a direction to management to hold an enquiry before taking any decision against him as well as for stay of departmental proceedings‑‑Chairman while rejecting prayer observing that there was no proper basis to presume that management would not follow requirement of relevant rules‑‑Appellant/ employee unable to produce any reasonable ground to interfere with order appealed against‑‑Appeal dismissed. ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Stay of proceedings‑‑Application of appellant/ employee for prohibiting respondent employer from passing any adverse order against appellant till final decision of appeal‑‑Appellant charge‑sheeted for pushing his officer from stairs and also instigating his colleagues to beat him‑‑Application for stay of proceedings not granted.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Ss. 15 & 53‑‑Proceedings against employee‑‑Prayer of employee before Chairman .of Industrial Relations Commission for issuing a direction to management to hold an enquiry before taking any decision against him as well as for stay of departmental proceedings‑‑Chairman while rejecting prayer observing that there was no proper basis to presume that management would not follow requirement of relevant rules‑‑Appellant/ employee unable to produce any reasonable ground to interfere with order appealed against‑‑Appeal dismissed. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ -- ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Stay of proceedings‑‑Application of appellant/ employee for prohibiting respondent employer from passing any adverse order against appellant till final decision of appeal‑‑Appellant charge‑sheeted for pushing his officer from stairs and also instigating his colleagues to beat him‑‑Application for stay of proceedings not granted. M.L.Shahani for Appellant. S. RATS AHMAD JAFRI, (Member).‑‑Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned counsel appearing before the learned Chairman had prayed that the management be directed to hold an enquiry before taking any decision against the petitioner. The learned Chairman in his finding has observed that there is no proper basis at this stage to presume that the management shall not follow the requirement of the relevant rules for they should know that if the action, they will ultimately take, suffers from material irregularity by way of breach of non‑observance of the relevant rules, the same will be liable to interference.
2. From further perusal of the impugned order it appears that it was also urged by the learned counsel before the learned Chairman that the departmental proceedings may be stayed. The finding of the learned Chairman is as under:‑‑ There is also no reason to justify the stay of the departmental proceedings itself because the charge‑sheet involves specific allegations of fact which needs to be enquired into, which enquiry has at this stage to be made by the Departmental Authorities.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant have not been able to produce any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned order. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant have also moved a miscellaneous application praying that the respondents may be prohibited from passing any adverse order against the appellant, till the final decision of the present appeal, we find that appellant Shabbir Ahmed B has been charge‑sheeted for pushing Vice‑President of the Bank from the stairs and also for persuading his colleagues to beat him. As a result of this instigation, the Vice‑President was beaten. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the stay order. Moreover, as the appeal has been dismissed in limine, this application has become infructuous and is also dismissed. M.Y.H/81/Lb Appeal dismissed.