| Case ID |
16c44915-4414-4bde-8605-9230a3968c1a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 17052 of 1998 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 11, 1999 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The dismissal of respondent No. 1 from service without holding an inquiry if upheld would have resulted in the permanent attachment of a stigma to the rest of the life of respondent No. 1 who would not have been in a position to get any suitable employment anywhere. Such an extreme penalty could not have been imposed by the petitioners without holding an inquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Nothing was brought on record to establish that respondent No. 1 did not fall in the category of workman or worker. In the case of National Bank of Pakistan (supra), a Bank Officer was treated to be a workman. A Labour Court is empowered to pass just and proper order which seem to have been passed in this case. A Labour Court is not divested of the jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance even in a case of relationship of master and servant in order to safeguard the rights of the workmen guaranteed by the Industrial and Labour Laws Order. Reliance can be placed on the case of Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqub etc. (PLD 1978 SC 207). The impugned orders are based on sound principles of law, foster justice and equity, which do not call for any interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from the hyper-technicalities as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned orders are just and fair doing substantial justice. No injustice or loss would be caused to the petitioners as in any case the respondent No. 1 was not going to be in the service of the petitioners. It is not necessary for this Court to strike down every order even though it may be technically illegal. This Court may refuse to exercise the jurisdiction in appropriate cases where the impugned order are just and fair in the circumstances. Reference may be made to the cases of Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others (1997 SCMR 1901), Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351), Mirza Abdur Razzaq and others v. Niamat Ali and 4 others (1980 Law Notes SC 583), Messrs Khyber Tobacco Co. Ltd., Mardan v. Labour Union and another (PLD 1976 Peshawar (DB) (8), Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236), S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367) and Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (PLD 1991 SC 691). For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL and another versus Rana ZAHID IQBAL and 2 others, the Lahore High Court delivered a pivotal judgment on March 11, 1999. The case revolved around Writ Petition No. 17052 of 1998, wherein the respondent, an Assistant Manager at Emirates Bank, was dismissed without a prior inquiry, leading to significant personal and professional repercussions. The petitioner, Emirates Bank International, contended that the dismissal was justified and did not require an official inquiry, asserting a master-servant relationship that should not be interfered with by labor courts.
However, the Court, presided over by Justice FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, scrutinized the procedural fairness of the dismissal. Citing the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) and the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), specifically Article 199, the Court emphasized the necessity of due process in employment termination. The judgment underscored that dismissing an employee without an inquiry could unjustly tarnish their reputation and hinder future employment opportunities, constituting an extreme and unfair penalty.
The Court referenced numerous precedents, including National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala and others, to affirm that even in hierarchical employment relationships, employees qualify as 'workmen' deserving protection under labor laws. The decision highlighted the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to safeguard workers' rights, ensuring just and equitable treatment. The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, reinforcing the principles of justice, equity, and the importance of procedural fairness in labor disputes.
This case serves as a crucial reference for employers and legal practitioners, emphasizing the critical balance between organizational authority and employees' rights. It highlights the evolving landscape of labor law in Pakistan, advocating for fair treatment and due process in employment matters. The judgment not only protects individual grievances but also sets a precedent for future cases involving employment disputes, ensuring that labor laws are applied consistently and justly across various sectors. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Lahore High Court,
EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL,
Rana ZAHID IQBAL,
Punjab Labour Court No.1,
Punjab Labour Appellant Tribunal
|
| Judges |
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
Jawaid Shaukat Malik
|
| Petitioners |
EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL and another
|
| Respondents |
Rana ZAHID IQBAL and 2 others
|
| Citations |
1999 SLD 867,
1999 PLC 302
|
| Other Citations |
Messrs Saqib Brothers and another v. Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan) Limited 1991 CLC 710,
S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another 1978 SCMR 367,
United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others 1998 SCMR 68,
Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236,
Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others v. Syed Jamil Ahmed 1993 SCMR 346,
Muhammad Umar Malik v. The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through its President, Karachi and 2 others 1995 SCMR 453,
Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1981 SC 224,
Abdul Haq and another v. Muhammad-din and another AIR 1923 Cal. 311,
G.M. Khan v. The Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1971 Kar. 613,
Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1971 SC 838,
Imran Ullah v. The Crown PLD 1954 FC 123,
American Baptist Foreign Mission Society v. Amalanadhuni Pattabhiramayya AIR 1919 Mad. 685,
Sheikh Haider Hussain and others v. Syed Ali Muhammad and others AIR 1945 All. 54,
Dr. Kidar Nath Sharma and others v. Rathiram Mangli and others AIR 1966 Punj. 321,
Ali Muhammad v. Rent Controller and another PLD 1957 Kar. 204,
Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another 1994 SCMR 223,
Vassiliades v. Vassiliades and another AIR 1945 PC 38,
Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Zia-ul-Hassan Kazmi 1998 SCMR 60,
Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and others v. The Christian Educational Endowment Trust, Lahore and others 1988 SCMR 1164,
Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1991 SCMR 46,
National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala and others 1992 SCMR 1891 fol.,
Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1978 SC 207,
Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others 1997 SCMR 1901,
Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari PLD 1997 SC 351,
Mirza Abdur Razzaq and others v. Niamat Ali and 4 others 1980 Law Notes SC 583,
Messrs Khyber Tobacco Co. Ltd., Mardan v. Labour Union and another PLD 1976 Pesh. 8,
Muhammad Baran and others v. Member, Settlement and Rehabilitation, Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 1991 SC 691 fol.
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
S. 25-A,
S. 2(xviii),
Art. 199
|