| Case ID |
03e3453b-0ee5-4b1f-8162-f4a669bf6a0b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 2691 of 1982 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 06, 1989 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Habib Bank Ltd., asserting that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had properly remanded the case back to the Labour Court for further proceedings. The Court held that the grievance raised by the respondent, Mr. Abid Nazir, regarding the termination of his probationary employment was still pending adjudication, and therefore, the constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked at this stage. The Court emphasized that the criteria for determining satisfactory progress during probation must be grounded in reality and not merely a pretext for dismissal. The Court ruled that since the Labour Appellate Tribunal had not ordered reinstatement but allowed for further evidence to be presented, the matter had not been conclusively resolved, warranting the dismissal of the writ petition without costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Habib Bank Ltd. vs. Arid Nazir and others, the Lahore High Court reviewed the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the termination of a probationary employee, Mr. Abid Nazir. The case centered around the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, specifically Section 25-A, which governs the termination of services during the probation period. The court noted that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had remanded the case for further examination of whether Mr. Nazir's performance was indeed unsatisfactory, thereby allowing for the opportunity to present additional evidence. The judgment underscored that the assessment of satisfactory progress must be based on substantive evidence rather than subjective assertions. The decision reinforced the principle that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to scrutinize termination orders and determine their legitimacy based on factual circumstances. This case highlights the importance of due process for employees under probation and the need for employers to substantiate claims regarding performance deficiencies with appropriate evidence. The ruling ultimately emphasized the balance between the rights of employees and the discretion of employers during the probationary period. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal,
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
Habib Bank Ltd.,
Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala
|
| Judges |
LEHRASAP KHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No. 3,
S.M. Zameer Zaidi for Petitioner
|
| Petitioners |
HABIB BANK Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
ARID NAZIR and others
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 1306 = 1990 PLC 215
|
| Other Citations |
Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others P L D 1978 S C 207,
Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Aslam and 25 others 1986 S C M R 1607
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
|
| Sections |
25-A
|