Dismissal

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Application for cancellation of bail

Dismissal

Allegation against the accused was that he along with his co-accused murdered the brother of complainant by firing

Record transpired that the accused was not nominated in the FIR

Complainant subsequently implicated the accused in the crime through supplementary statement

Complainant had already nominated the father and brother of accused in the FIR, meaning thereby that complainant was present at the spot and knew to each other

No specific injury was attributed to the accused and only general allegation was levelled against him

Bail was granted by the court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of cogent reasons, the same could not be cancelled until and unless on exceptional grounds

Mere involvement of the accused in the alleged crime did not mean that he had committed the same

Prosecution was at liberty to bring cogent evidence to substantiate its case against the accused at the trial

No allegation that the accused had misused the concession of bail

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.

Employee sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the Management for non-compliance of order passed by court directing the management to continue with the enquiry proceedings against the employee and not to pass final order

Plea of Management was that plaintiff was terminated from service along with 107 other employees on another charge and till date even after completion of the proceedings, no final order had been passed

Validity

Held; Management was not restrained from passing any order while reviewing the performance of the employee as well as other employees as per procedure in vogue

Services of employee had been terminated for poor performance which did not amount to contempt or violation of court's order

Contempt petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Worker under S.25-A(4) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was given option, either to challenge the matter before the Labour Court on expiry of time specified for decision of the grievance by the employer in terms of S.25-A(2)(3) of the Ordinance, or he could challenge the final order of the employer/competent authority on the grievance notice served by him

In the present case, the documents produced by the petitioner/worker, had shown that right after his dismissal from service, he had been filing appeals/representations/applications before the departmental authorities for his reinstatement; which remained un-responded and lastly he served the employer Bank with grievance notice, with the prayer that he be reinstated in service

While replying to the said notice Bank authorities took the stance that he could not be reinstated as his request in that regard was time-barred

Upon receipt of reply from the Bank authorities, worker filed grievance petition before the Labour Court within the prescribed period of limitation

Observations of Labour Appellate Tribunal, coupled with the contention of counsel representing the employer, to the effect that the grievance petition filed by the worker was time-barred had no worth at all in circumstances.

Employees, during de novo proceedings could not introduce entirely different set of allegations by way of serving a fresh charge-sheet

Conduct of employer Bank, towards issuance of fresh charge sheet under the garb of de novo proceedings had no legs to stand

If the Bank authorities, were of the view that conduct of the worker was amenable to any disciplinary proceedings, same could proceed against him independently without taking aid from the findings of Labour Court

Subsequent charge-sheet had shown that in addition to the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.5000, other allegations were also included therein

Had the said charge-sheet been issued pursuant to the observation of the Labour Court, regarding de novo proceedings against the worker, same could be issued to the extent of the allegations which were basis of the dismissal of the worker in the first round of litigation

Inconsistent attitude of the Bank authorities, was manifest from the fact that on the one hand they adopted the plea that they issued subsequent show-cause notice pursuant to observations of Labour Court and on the other hand introduced entirely different set of allegations.

Adverse inference would go against Bank authorities that perhaps, the Inquiry Officer was not ready to come forward to support the case of the employer Bank.

Complainant had alleged that police officials raided his house, assaulted the women folk and complainant was abducted from his house

Police officials were exonerated during departmental inquiry by the high ups of the department because entry in roznamcha regarding the arrest of the complainant was available

Wife of complainant did not appear before the Justice of Peace as well as the High Court to record her statement

Complainant was unable to make out a case for registration of FIR against the alleged accused persons

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Defendant-company contended that Demand Finance facility had been created for the purpose of adjusting the Finance against Packing Credit FAPC (Finance against packing credit) facility and FAFB (finance against foreign bill) facility; and that the only amount due and payable was the amount against the Demand Finance facility, as according to the last entry in the statement of account, the liability with regard to the FAPC facility had been shown as Nil balance and in the statement of account, the Demand Finance facility had been shown as adjusted and no withdrawal had been shown; that the claim regarding FAPC facility and FAFB facility was therefore unlawful, and that no actual disbursement had taken place

Plaintiff-Bank contended that the FAPC facility and a portion of FAFB facility had been converted into the Demand Finance facility, and that said restructuring substantiated the Bank's claim with regard to the Demand Finance facility and FAFB facility separately, and that the last entry in the statement of accounts was marked as Nil for the reason that the amounts had been transferred to a new account, which was described as non-performing loan account

Validity

Facility offer letter with regard to the renewal and restructuring of certain finance facilities was already being availed by the defendant-company; some of those facilities were fresh facilities, whereas, the others were merely renewed or restructured so as to enable the defendant to repay the amounts already due from them, and which had not been paid in terms of the obligations cast upon them by way of the earlier finance agreements

Bank's claim with regard to its claim in respect of FAFB facility and FAPC facility was supported by the concise statement of account attached with the plaint, which had been validly and properly been explained by the plaintiff-Bank

Claim with regard to the Demand Finance facility was separate claim, which had been admitted by the defendant-company

Facility offer letter, the finance facilities had been renewed and restructured as a result of the arrangement reflected in said facility offer letter, which merely meant that in respect of existing entries certain adjustments had been made and for the purpose book entries had been made which were in contemplation of the contracting parties, and disbursement of facility was not necessary in said cases

Defendant, at the time of grant of renewal and restructuring of the facilities under the facility offer letter, were aware of the nature of the facilities being granted and also that for the purposes of the restructuring of those facilities, certain book entries would have to be made and adjustments of the earlier outstanding dues would also be part of the restructuring agreement

Chief Executive of the defendant-company had written a letter to the Bank, whereby, the defendant had admitted the finance facilities having been availed by them form the Bank and certain amount outstanding and due to the bank, and they also made a request to reschedule the credit line

Admission made by the defendant in the said letter was sufficient to hold them liable for the repayment of the amount mentioned in the letter

Defendant had failed to raise any substantial question of fact or law in their application for leave to defend

Suit for recovery was decreed in circumstances.

Establishment/appellants installed tyre pyrolysis plants, which was latest technology, and widely accepted throughout the modern world

Increasing industrialization and motorization, had led to a significant rise in demand of petroleum products

Pyrolysis of scrap tyres could be used effectively to produce oil, thereby solving the problem of waste tyre disposal

Pyrolysis was a thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperature in the absence of oxygen

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), did not communicate its approval or otherwise within the stipulated period, and under S.12(4) of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, the reports were deemed to be approved, after lapse of statutory period

Environmental Protection Agency, after keeping the matter pending for a considerable period, communicated the impugned orders, whereby applications of the appellants for Environmental Approval was declined

Pakistan being a party to the 'Basel Convention', had adopted Revised Technical Guidelines for the environmentally sound management of used and waste pneumatic tyres

Pyrolysis, was internationally recognized as environmentally sound process of recycling waste tyres; and Guidelines had been adopted by Basel Convention

Pakistan had adopted the policy of sustainable development, use of natural resources scarcely and to use indigenous coal, biomass in power plants to reduce reliance upon imported oil

Environmental Protection Agency failed to adopt the legal procedure contained in S.12 of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997

Environmental Protection Agency was not empowered to decline demand of the appellants

Agency, either had to approve or could require submission of EIA by the proponent, if permissible by law; and for the reasons to be recorded, only in case the project was likely to have any adverse environmental effect

In the present case, Agency, travelled beyond its jurisdiction and declined environmental approval without requiring appellants to submit EIA

No adverse environmental effect had been discussed

Agency did not find that the project of the appellant, was contrary to environmental objectives

Grounds for declining the approval were extraneous

Approval could not be declined on the basis of any recommendation or direction of the Federal Government, as it was a Provincial subject

Impugned order passed by Agency, was not sustainable in the eyes of law and had not been passed by application of independent mind

Impugned orders were set aside by the Tribunal, and matter was remanded to the agency to review each and every Unit, in view of the specific facts and circumstances of the project, and decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties.

Mother (petitioner) alleged that her sons (alleged detenus) were in the illegal custody of their father (respondent), who entered her house and forcibly took away the children

Validity

Children were with their father, for the last four to five months and present petition had been filed after lapse of such period without any explanation

After children were removed from her custody unlawfully, mother should have filed a report with the police or made a complaint to concerned authorities in accordance with law

Prima facie, it appeared from the conduct of mother that the children were not removed forcibly from her, therefore, it could not be said that custody of children with their father was illegal or unlawful, within the meaning of S. 491, Cr.P.C.

No proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 were pending before Court

No question arose of giving away regular custody of children to either party declaring any of them as guardian under S.7 read with Ss. 12 & 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 because regular custody was to be decided in the proceedings under the said Act

Petition was dismissed in circumstances, however as an interim arrangement, father of children was directed to leave the children with their mother every week from Friday evening till Sunday evening, after which the mother would return the children without fail, and both parties were further directed not to remove the children out of the city without permission of the court.

Complainant remained unsuccessful in getting registration of F.I.R., therefore, he filed private complaint but the same was dismissed by Trial Court and also by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by two courts below

Validity

Unexplained delay was undoubtedly fatal to the case of complainant

Court was -bilged to examine such aspect of case even if counsel of parties had Piled to raise such plea on the well known principle that a Judge must wear all laws of country on the sleeve of his robes and failure of counsel to properly advise was not complete excuse in the matter

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in High Court against order passed by Lower Appellate Court in Criminal revision

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and judgment passed by High Court was set aside

Appeal was allowed.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

While filing election petition, petitioner failed to give list of witnesses, private or official, along with election petition

Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on the ground that list of witnesses was not filed with the petition as the same had been made mandatory by Election Commission in a notification

Validity

Parameters for dismissal of election petition were laid down in S.63 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, due to the failure of the compliance of certain provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1976

Failure to comply with the provisions of notification in question could not be made ground for dismissal of election petition

Notification was a subordinate legislation, therefore, it could not control powers of Election Tribunal as Civil Court

Election petition could not be dismissed by Election Tribunal for non-compliance of the provisions of notification. in question

Mere delivery of petition to respondent without documents and affidavits of witnesses mentioned in the notification would not serve object of S.62 of Representation of the People Act, 1976

Affidavits of certain polling agents/private witnesses were filed along with election petition; therefore, failure to give list of witnesses whose affidavits had been attached with petition would' not be prejudicial to election petitioner

Such witnesses could be produced by petitioner in his evidence and barring them petitioner could not be allowed to produce any other private witness

Petitioner was not required to file affidavits of official witnesses along with the petition

Petitioner failed to append list of official witnesses along with election petition and at belated stage, petitioner could not be allowed to produce official witnesses without specific permission of Election Tribunal but petitioner failed to submit any application seeking permission to produce such witnesses

Election Tribunal partly maintained the objection raised by respondent to the extent that petitioner could move application giving reasons justifying production of official witnesses and documents if any, intended to be produced and proved by petitioner through such witnesses

Objection was disposed of accordingly.

Labour Appellate Tribunal in earlier round of litigation, while upholding order of reinstatement of workman, had given option to establishment to hold inquiry to find out if workman was entitled to full back benefits or half of them as awarded by Labour Court

Question of reinstatement being closed question as a result of judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal, such question could not be re-opened in domestic inquiry

Workman having been re-instated under order of Labour Appellate Tribunal, there was no ground for his dismissal for second time on the same allegations

If result of fresh inquiry was against workman he should forego payment of additional 50 per cent back benefits but question of re-instatement could not be opened by holding fresh inquiry.

Petitioner held to be guilty of misappropriation of tax amount collected by him on behalf of Government which was sought to be recovered from him

Leave refused.

Final show-cause notice was issued and order of dismissal was in fact passed by competent authority with authentication "by order of Governor"

Point for review not raised by petitioner at time of argument of appeal nor it finds mention in judgments of any of Courts below nor even in plaint-Petition for review dismissed.-

Petitioner assailing view taken by High Court that Presiding Officer "if he is otherwise satisfied about identity of voter he may not require production of national identity card and may issue him a ballot-paper" on ground that same was without taking into consideration amended provisions of r. 34(1) of Rules, 1979

Leave granted.

Absence from duty-Action against respondent Government servant taken in first instance under cl. (a) of sub-rule (3) of r. 5, but further action under said clause frustrated by respondent's unavailability at his last known address without leaving his new address

Resort by authorised officer to provision of cl. (c) of sub-rule (3) and his recommendation of summary dismissal of respondent after he failed to comply with terms of notice issued in press under cl. (c) of sub-rule (3) of r.5, held, justified-Appeal against order of Service Tribunal holding dismissal as not sustainable accepted.

Appellant also denied opportunity to defend himself properly on account of undue haste made by management by informing him about new date of enquiry on same day on which enquiry was started

Ex parte dismissal order based on such an enquiry, held, not sustainable-Dismissal order set aside, in circumstances.

Dismissal—Allegation of misappropriation against employee Fact admitted that Amount in question when drawn alleged recipient was out of Pakistan

Thumb-impression affixed on payment found fictitious and person receiving not examined either in enquiry or before lower Court—Mis-appropriation of amount by workman proved-Dismissal from service of such workman, held, rightly ordered.

Factum of flowing of liquid though admitted by workman yet done under instructions from plant superintendent and workman having no criminal intention

Such admission not being a qualified one, workman should have been provided opportunity by holding regular enquiry and in absence thereof workman has been caused prejudice

Order of dismissal of workman, held, rightly struck down by lower Court.

Appellant charged with misappropriation-Objection to appointment of second enquiry officer and request for copy of first enquiry proceedings not accepted

Appellant cross-examined prosecution witnesses and was afforded opportunity to produce defence-Refused to furnish reply to second show-cause notice

Was found guilty and dismissed from service

Order challenged on ground that appointment of enquiry officer and issuing of show-cause was not by competent authority

Contentions not substantiated

Order of dismissal upheld by Tribunal as charge of misappropriation was duly proved against appellant.

Held: No misappropriation having been made till time of checking, alleged intention to misappropriate money in future does not amount to misconduct-Conductor could at most be guilty of negligence

Order of reinstatement in service upheld by Tribunal in circumstances.

Art. 199 - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A (5)-West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15, para. 3(h)Misconduct-Dismissal - Allegation of employer that workman delivered an objectionable speech accusing management, Provincial Government and Federal Government of inhuman behaviour to workmen in presence of foreign delegation-Nature of speech was such which would amount to an act subversive of discipline-Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal after going behind dismissal order satisfying themselves that allegation of misconduct and dismissal was proved and justified in view of said speech-Fact that speech in question in verbatim was not produced before Courts below, held. was of no consequence - Dismissal was, therefore, justified in circumstances.

Art. 212(3), Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4 and West Pakistan Civil Servants (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, r. 5(5) Seniority-Seniority inter se- of direct recruits and promotees, to Provincial Civil Service-Claim of petitioners (formerly Naib Tehsildars), to have their names approved by Public Service Commission, based on no provision of law or rule applicable-In absence of law or rule governing situation, held, petitioners could not claim nor could Service Tribunal ante-date for purpose of their seniority date of their actual appointment and give them seniority from a period when they were in fact not appointed to post or to service-No legal error committed by Service Tribunal Petition dismissed.-[Civil service].

S. O. 15(4)-Worker-Dismissal-Petitioner a fitter driving a bus and killing a boy of seven years-Contention that he could not be saddled with responsibility for killing and as such charge not standing proved against him, held, has no force-Petitioner charged -for driving out a bus being a Fitter and charge proved-Dismissal order, held, proper.

Dismissal-Order cannot be made effective with retrospective effect-Charge of absence-Workman asked to resume duty but remaining absent - Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, effective from date of issue and not from date of absence.

S. 4-Dismissal-Appeal against-Appellant (Forester) charged for loss on trees-Enquiry Officer exonerating him of charge but finding him guilty of inefficiency-Record supporting failure of reporting loss to superior authorities on part of appellant-Appellant, in circumstances, held, cannot be absolved of loss-Dismissal order upheld.

Misconduct. Show-cause notice necessary even in case of temporary workman or a probationer.

Misconduct-Workers established to have been responsible for illegal strike and to have indulged in disorderly and riotous activities resulting in ugly situation in' an establishment like Hospital-Dismissal of such workers on ground of misconduct upheld.

Management deputing other officer for enquiry into charges-Enquiry Officer finding accused workers guilty of misconduct and General Manager on basis of such report ordering their dismissal-Held, enquiry having been initiated on his own complaint-General Manager was not proper person to pass order of dismissal-Order of dismissal having been found defective, set aside Charge against workers being very serious, report or Enquiry officer ordered to be looked into by an authority not subordinate to General Manager and accused workers to be dealt with according to principles of natural justice.

- Dismissal - Departmental proceedings initiated for accepting illegal gratification - Initial charge-sheet indicating penalty of compulsory retirement but in formal show-cause notice penalty mentioned as dismissal and ultimate order passed against employee also that of dismissal-Held, no prejudice caused to accused-employee and order of dismissal not vitiated.

Dismissal - Departmental proceedings initiated for accepting illegal gratification - Initial charge-sheet indicating penalty of compulsory retirement but in formal show-cause notice penalty mentioned as dismissal and ultimate order passed against employee also that of dismissal-Held, no prejudice caused go accused-employee and order of dismissal not vitiated.

Workman receiving transfer order found to be improper but returning same with endorsements that "his transfer was against Collective Agreement"-Workman, by such conduct, cannot be said to be guilty of insubordination-Re-instatement ordered.

Agreement between employer and workmen to call of strike, release arrested workmen and discontinuing of proceedings by employer – against workmen-Second strike by workmen-Employer not justified in proceeding against workmen for first strike

Reliance on punishment for first strike, in circumstances, held, not justified in dismissal of workmen for second strike,

Misconduct-No proper enquiry and defence opportunity-Dismissal in circumstances, held, not valid-Worker, however, undesirable in view of employer

Evidence of rely behaviour on part of worker available

Case, in circumstances, held, not fit for re-instatement and only termination benefits granted.

Dismissal Misconduct-Charge vague and not specific-Worker neither given 3 days time for explanation nor full-fledged enquiry held and no opportunity of hearing, given-Grievance petition not replied-Dismissal, in circumstances held, illegal and provisions of S. 25, East Pakistan. Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 violated employer unwilling to accept worker on service-Re-instatement not stressed by worker-Termination benefits, in circumstances, awarded instead of re-instatement-East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25.

Dismissal-Condition of service that "services will be terminable on one month's notice on either side" - Dismissal for misconduct - Condition not attracted.

Dismissal Dismissal-Worker dismissed for making `false and misleading statement"-Dismissal, held, a nullity and set aside-Fine 1/32 of months wages-Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (Ill of 1960), O. 13(1)(ii)(c).

Dismissal-Misconduct-Workman found guilty after proper domestic enquiry-Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to interfere with order of dismissal-Reference by employer to extraneous matters-Whether vitiates order of dismissal.

Dismissal Dismissal-Dismissal after proper domestic enquiry into misconduct-Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to interfere with order of employer-When Tribunal has right to go into merits of dismissal Employer adducing further evidence before Tribunal-Whether gives Tribunal right to ignore domestic enquiry-Proper procedure Suspension of workmen for misconduct-Failure of employer to communicate order of dismissal-Effect- Whether workman continues in service.

Dismissal Dismissal-Misconduct-Standing Orders proving for dismissal without notice-Whether justifies dismissal without enquiry-Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to consider merits of dismissal-Dismissal after charge-sheet and enquiry-Whether Tribunal can interfere with dismissal.

Dismissal Dismissal-Insubordination-Dismissal after enquiry order of dismissal mentioning that past record of workmen had been considered-Does not vitiate enquiry-Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere with dismissal.

Workmen employed as compositors in printing press-Refusing to do joining work-Guilty of wilful misconduct-Dismissal justified.

Dismissal Dismissal-Reference of justifiability of dismissal for adjudication-Re-instatement cannot be ordered on sole ground of contravention of S. 33, Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 947)-Tribunal, to go into merits of dismissal.

Dismissal -. Allegation of theft, insignificant, with subsequent reprehensible conduct, proved after due compliance with statutory provisions-Dismissal upheld-Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960), cl. 13 (4).

Dismissal Dismissal - Compliance of provision of law-Dismissal upheld-Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1964), cl. 13 (4).

Dismissal Dismissal-For alleged misconduct without proper enquiry or charge-sheet-Re-instatement with full benefit of arrears, ordered.

Dismissal Dismissal-Improper and against statutory provisions Re-instatement ordered-Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (111 of 1960), O. 13 (4).

Dismissal Order passed by inferior authority, set aside by competent authority Original order not maintainable as not in subsistence

Inferior authority's order merges in superior authority's competent order.