2007 PLC 46 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM JAVED Versus UNITED BANK LTD. CIRCLE OFFICE, FAISALABAD through Circle Executive
| Citation | 2007 PLC 46 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM JAVED Versus UNITED BANK LTD. CIRCLE OFFICE, FAISALABAD through Circle Executive |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLC 46 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLC 46 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLC 46 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM JAVED Versus UNITED BANK LTD. CIRCLE OFFICE, FAISALABAD through Circle Executive). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Mahmood Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2-A & 6
Employee of bank was reinstated by Labour Court--Bank tiled appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal but on abolition of Tribunal, appeal was transferred to High Court, which was allowed in favour of bank on 8.4.2005
Plea raised by the employee was that during pendency of appeal before High Court S.2-A was inserted in Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and jurisdiction to hear appeal vested only with Service Tribunal thus all appeals before other forums stood abated
Remedy provided to parties concerned was available in proviso to S.6 (2) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which allowed a period of 90 days to a party concerned to tile appeal before Service Tribunal
Bank being appellant, did not invoke jurisdiction of Service Tribunal within 90 days and even long thereafter
High Court decided appeal which was never in existence before it and which had abated long ago--No cause was deemed to have been pending before High Court due to the operation of abatement
High Court had neither the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter nor any matter was pending before it
Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the judgment passed by High Court
Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
After having been proceeded against by the authorities of United Bank Limited, Muhammad Aslam Javed was dismissed from service on 8-7-1986. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court concerned under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Vide judgment, dated 29-2-1992 the Labour Court reinstated the petitioner. The bank went in appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal, which appeal, on abolition of the Tribunal, got transferred to the High Court. Through the impugned judgment dated 8-4-2005, such appeal was accepted and the order of bank authorities was restored. Muhammad Aslam Javed seeks leave to appeal.
2. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court with reference to section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. This Court accordingly had issued notice to the respondent-Bank which is today represented by Mian Mahmood Salem, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. It is an admitted fact that the appeal of the bank before Labour Appellate Tx:bunal or High Court was pending when section 2-A got inserted into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with effect from 10-6-1997. As a forum in the shape of Service Tribunal got established through section 2-A of the Act, the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal abated forthwith. On crucial date, it would be deemed that no appeal was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal after 10-6-1997 by force of law.
3. The remedy provided to the parties concerned is available in proviso (2) of section 6 of the Act, which allowed a period of 90 days to a party concerned to tile an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The bank, being appellant, never invoked the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal within 90 days and even long thereafter. The result is that the learned High Court has decided the appeal which was never in existence before it and which had abated long ago on 10-6-1997.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that it was a serious case of embezzlement and that the delay involved may be condoned and also that the objection on the jurisdiction of High Court be turned down due to not having been taken before the High Court at the first instance.
5. The question of condonation is not at all tenable because the respondent-Bank has not filed any cause where the delay needed to be condoned. The raising of objection at the first instance becomes material when some forum decides a matter pending before it. In the instant case, by force of law the appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal or the High Court had abated long before, on 10-6-1997. No cause would be deemed to have been pending before the Court due to the operation of abatement. The High Court, therefore, had neither the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter nor any matter was legally pending before it.
6. Consequently, the petition after conversion into appeal, is hereby accepted and the impugned judgment, dated 8-4-2005 is hereby set aside. M.H./M-341/SC Appeal allowed.