Pakistan Case Law← Search
1989 SCMR 661

THE GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED vs Rai ABDUL RAZZAQUE KHAN and others

Citation1989 SCMR 661
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No,213 of 1979
Date1988-12-03
Judge(s)Naimuddin, Dr. Javed Iqbal, Muhammad Haleem
ResultAppeal dismissed

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, CI-Respondent No,3, at the relevant time, was the President of the Grindlays Bank Employees Union. He was, upon inquiry, found guilty of wilful insubordination and wilful interference in the affairs of the management, and was accordingly issued a show-cause notice on 16th of June, 1976, but his explanation contained in the reply to it was not accepted. The Chief Area Manager of the appellant also heard him in person and upheld the finding by order dated 3rd of July, 1976, and instead of dismissal imposed a lesser penalty of demotion from the post of Assistant to that of a Clerk.

2. ' Before the passing of this order, an industrial dispute had already been raised with the managment in regard to which the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, Rawalpindi. The appellant on 8th of July, 1976, moved an application before the said Court under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking its permission to implement the order of demotion. The Labour Court, however, after some inquiry, refused permission to the appellant to implement the order. Against this order, the appellant invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, but did not succeed as the petition was dismissed on 21st of November, 1978. The Intra-Court Appeal against this order also met the same fate as it was dismissed by order dated 7th of April, 1979.

3. Leave was accordingly granted to consider the scope and abmit of subsection (2) of section 47 of the Ordinance. However, we are informed that the industrial dispute has already been resolved.

4. The order by the Labour Court and upheld by the High Court was of an interim nature which enured till the conclusion of the proceedings involving the industrial dispute.

5. ' In that view of the matter, the order lapsed with the resolution of the dispute and the appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as such, but with no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search