Employees of previous establishment
Employees of previous establishment legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioners were officials of erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan who had become officials of Zarai Taraqiati Bank
Plea raised by petitioners was that they were entitled to those pensionary benefits as had been prescribed for Federal Government employees from time to time
Validity
Bank having adopted same policy, therefore, it was obliged to give benefits to those officers / executives who retired during relevant time and such benefit could not be denied
High Court directed Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited to fulfill its obligation in terms of policy and to pay those amongst petitioners who had retired on or after 1-7-1999, the arrears, which might have become due to them in terms of the policy and to continue to pay to petitioners their pension/family pension in consonance therewith
Petition was allowed accordingly.
"Employees of previous establishment", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939880
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Employees of previous establishment"
2013 P L C (C
Mrs. KANEEZ FATIMA ABRO and 9 others Versus PRESIDENT, ZARAI TARQIATI BANK LTD. and 2 others
Court: Sindh High Court1981 P L C 9
PAKISTAN SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI
Court: Karachi High Court1993 P L C 706
WORKERS ITTEHAD UNION (REED.) PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS and others
Court: Lahore High CourtP L D 1992 Lahore 68
and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary,
Court: ‑‑‑‑ Art. 4 as substituted by Transfer of Managed Establishments (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XY‑NIII of 1991) ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199 ‑‑‑ Unsuccessful bidder whether aggrieved person ‑‑‑ Petitioner being an unsuccessful bidder was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution so as to maintain Constitutional petition; moreso, when Federal Government had retained a right to accept or reject the offer made by bidders and accepted the highest bid offered by the respondent bidder.1992 S C M R 2121
WORKERS' UNION, UNITED INDUSTR'E‑.S LTD. FAISALABAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of'Pakistan2003 P L C (C
Khawaja ABDUL HAMEED NASIR and others Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1993 Supreme Court 70
INDUSTRIES LTD., SHEIKHUPURA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Minister
Court: S. 5‑A amended by Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) (Second Amendment) Act (XI of 1992) ‑‑‑ Sale of State owned industrial unit ‑‑‑ Petitioner workers bid to purchase State owned industrial unit was not accepted ‑‑‑ Petitioner's Constitutional petition against rejection of their bid dismissed ‑‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑ Petitioner's claim to purchase industrial unit in question, was based on Memorandum of Agreement between Government and employees union whereby it was agreed that employees would be provided all opportunities to purchase a unit if they made a bid and would also have right of negotiation on the highest bid ‑‑‑ Right given to the employees by Memorandum of Agreement to purchase State‑owned industrial unit was of a very general nature and during negotiations that ensued in connection with the consideration of the bid, the law underwent a change; statutory provision which existed on the date of the final decision was that the management could be given only to that group of employees which was recognised by the Federal Government to have been formally constituted as such ‑‑‑ Where after submission of petitioner's bid nearly fifty per cent. (50%) of the members of petitioner group had disassociated themselves from the petitioner and even recognised representative of the workers viz. C.B.A., was not supporting their bid, no fault could be found with the decision of Authority in rejecting bid of petitioner and deciding in favour of ex‑management (respondent) whose bid was ultimately higher than that submitted by the petitioner ‑‑‑ Petitioner's plea, that law as it obtained on the date of the bid i.e. 17‑10‑1991 governed the cause and amendment made thereafter on 27‑4‑1992 in S.5‑A by Ordinance VII of 1992 did not affect the right of the parties, was found to be untenable‑‑ Respondent (purchaser of industrial unit) however, gave undertaking that in case members of petitioner group were given a "golden band shake" or their services were dispensed with, all benefits and privileges eligible to such employees under terms of Memorandum of Agreement would be extended to them notwithstanding that they might not have opted so far to avail such benefits, for any reason‑‑‑Such assurance was duly noted by Supreme Court.1984 P L C 1291
SHAUKAT ALI TAHIR Versus HABIB BANK LTD.
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab1976 P L C 652
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS Versus PAK CIVIL AVIATION EMPLOYEES' UNION
Court: High Court2003 S C M R 1030
Khawaja ABDUL HAMEED NASIR and others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan