1985 PLP 1786 (SCMR)
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and another — Petitioners Versus IJAZ AHMED ABBASI — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1786 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and another — Petitioners Versus IJAZ AHMED ABBASI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | --S. 25-A--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Termination of service--Workman--Writ jurisdiction--Appellate Tribunal, without adverting to merits, of case, accepting appeal only on its finding on question of status of respondent--Finding set aside in writ jurisdiction, (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1786 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: --S. 25-A--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Termination of service--Workman--Writ jurisdiction--Appellate Tribunal, without adverting to merits, of case, accepting appeal only on its finding on question of status of respondent--Finding set aside in writ jurisdiction, (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1786 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1786 (SCMR) (ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and another — Petitioners Versus IJAZ AHMED ABBASI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record' for Petitioners.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1985.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record' for Petitioners.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 9-4-1985, passed in Writ Petition No. 28 of 1985).
Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25-A--Termination of service--Workman--Status of employee as workman having been conceded by employer Bank in writ petition before High Court and in written reply before Labour Court Bank could not raise contention contrary to its own pleading--Finding of Tribunal, held, rightly set aside by High Court. Order impugned--High Court ought to have directed Tribunal t& decide appeal on merits--Supreme Court allowing appeal to extent that appeal before Appellate Tribunal be deemed pending for decision on merits- Appeal partly allowed.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an application made by the respondent under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, against the termination of his service by the petitioner/ Bank. The respondent had first challenged the termination of his service by a writ petition but the same was dismissed in limine upon an objection raised on behalf of the Bank that the respondent being a workman his remedy lay before a Labour Court. The application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was accordingly filed by the respondent before the Labour Court which was contested by the Bank on the ground of limitation while his status as a workman was not denied. The application was ultimately accepted by the Labour Court and the Bank was directed to re‑instate the respondent into service with all back benefits. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, however, upon a finding that the respondent was not a workman and without adverting to the merits of the case, accepted the Bank's appeal, set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the respondents application. This was challenged by the respondent through a writ petition which was accepted by the impugned judgment and in the result the order of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside.
2. As already noted, the status of the respondent as workman had not only been conceded by the Bank in the earlier writ petition but also in its reply before the Labour Court. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that the Bank should not have been 0allowed by the Appellate Tribunal to raise a contention contrary to its own pleading.
3. It is next contended that as the Appellate Tribunal had not adverted to the merits of the case and had accepted the appeal only on its finding on the question of status of the respondent, the High Court ought to have, after setting aside the appellate order, directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. Since the appeal had not been decided on merits, we convert this petition into appeal and allow it to the extent that the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed pending for decision on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. M.I. Appeal partly allowed.