2013 PLP 894 (SCMR)
DEEDAR AHMED BHAYO — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 894 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | DEEDAR AHMED BHAYO — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 894 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 894 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 894 (SCMR) (DEEDAR AHMED BHAYO — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghouri, Advocate Supreme Court and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Iqbal, VP/GM (Operation), NBP for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 2011.
- 3. Mr. Sanauallh Noor Ghouri, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has contended that section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act 1973 was repealed on 5th March, 2010 whereas the appeal was filed before the Tribunal much prior to said date and as such the Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against order dated 9-8-2011 of Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, passed in M.P. No. 378 of 2008 in Appeal No.366(K)CE of 2004).
S. 4(1)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Services Tribunal, jurisdiction of
Scope
Appeal filed by employee of National Bank of Pakistan before Federal Service Tribunal
In the present case, employee of National Bank of Pakistan requested for a Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme, but subsequently applied to the Bank for cancellation of his request
Bank did not give a satisfactory reply to the employee, who filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal
Service Tribunal dismissed said appeal on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of employees of National Bank of Pakistan
Employee in question was not a civil servant and if Bank had any statutory rules, the remedy lay before the High Court and not before the Federal Service Tribunal
Service Tribunal had rightly non-suited the employee
No question of law of public importance within the meaning of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution had been pointed out
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances and leave was refused. Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 and Raja Riaz v. Chairman, Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission 2008 SCMR 402 ref.
Judgment & Decree
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioner impugns order dated 9-8-2011, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby his appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in matters relating to terms and conditions of service of the employees of respondent-bank.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is admittedly an employee of the respondent-bank, has opted for Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme on 12-11-2001. Thereafter, on 22-11-.2001, he applied the management of the respondent-bank for cancellation/rejection of his VHS request; but after not receiving any satisfactory reply, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same has been abated in view of the judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602). After the judgment of this Court in the case of Raja Riaz v. Chairman, Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (2008 SCMR 402), the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order of the Assistant Registrar and the Tribunal after recalling the order of abatement dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter, as the petitioner is an employee of the Bank. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. Sanauallh Noor Ghouri, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has contended that section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act 1973 was repealed on 5th March, 2010 whereas the appeal was filed before the Tribunal much prior to said date and as such the Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal on merits.
4. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. In reply to a Court query whether the respondent-bank has any statutory rules and if so whether the petitioner can be termed as a civil servant, the learned counsel has frankly conceded that the petitioner is not a civil servant.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a civil servant and if the respondent-bank has any statutory rules, the remedy lies before the High Court and not before the Tribunal. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly non-suited the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 9-8-2011, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. Moreover, no question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been pointed out.
7. Consequently, the listed petition lacking in merit stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/D-2/SC Petition dismissed.