ALLIED BANK LIMITED vs ZULFIQAR ALI SHAR S — 2021 PLC 191 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS ZULFIQAR ALI SHAR S.O. 12(3)---Termination of employment in simpliciter---Scope---Reinstatement in service---Scope---In exercise of powers under S.O. 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 ('the 1968 Ordinance'), where power of termination was "in simpliciter", and such order met and fulfilled the criteria given in S.O. 12(3), a workman could not be reinstated into service on the ground that charges of misconduct had not been established and that no regular inquiry was held against him---Requirement of law was limited to the extent of communication of the order in writing explicitly stating the reasons for such action---Such action could not be set aside or declared illegal simply on the ground that termination of service could only be made on proof of misconduct after issuance of a show cause notice, conducting a regular inquiry and by orders of the employer after granting him a personal hearing---Such interpretation would negate the very object and purpose of S.O. 12(3) of the 1968 Ordinance which envisaged that under certain circumstances, the employer could terminate the services of a workman "in simpliciter" by giving explicit reasons justifying such termination. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 191 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS ZULFIQAR ALI SHAR "Ordinary meaning and usage of words"---Scope---In constructing and interpreting statutes, the Court first had to look at the language of the law and interpret the same in accordance with the ordinary meaning and usage of the words---Context in which the said words had been used by the legislature as evident from the language of the provision itself could also be considered without adding to or subtracting anything from the same---Incase of lack of clarity, as a second step, the Court may look for the intent and purpose of the lawmaker in using a particular language and words as evident from the language of the statute. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 191 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS ZULFIQAR ALI SHAR S.O. 12(3)---Termination of employment in simpliciter---Scope---Employee convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence subsequently acquitted by the Appellate Court---Employer terminating services of employee---Question as to whether an employer was required to wait indefinitely and keep a post vacant till such time that all appellate remedies were exhausted and the employee became available to perform services against the post for which he was employed---Held, that it was unfair and unjust to expect an employer to wait indefinitely and keep a post vacant till such time that the employee had exhausted all legal remedies and in the meantime was either incarcerated or for any other reason unable or unwilling to join his duty and perform services for extended periods of time---Employer was only required to wait for a reasonable time which could vary on a case to case basis depending upon the nature of the job that the delinquent employee was performing and how long it could realistically be kept open and vacant without materially affecting the working of the employer---In the absence of mala fide on the part of the employer a reasonable period should not ordinarily exceed a period of two months during which if an employee was unable to return to work his services could be terminated simpliciter in exercise of powers under S.O. 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 191 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS ZULFIQAR ALI SHAR S.O. 12(3)---Termination of employment in simpliciter---Scope---Employee convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence subsequently acquitted by the Appellate Court---Employer terminating services of employee---Whether the termination of services of such employee required the process of issuing a show-cause notice, holding a regular inquiry and the passing of a proper order by the competent authority after granting him a personal hearing or, was his termination simpliciter not requiring the said process---Held, that respondent-employee was accused of an offence, an FIR was lodged against him and he was arrested and later convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction; he remained incarcerated for more than 6 years during which time he was not available to perform services as a cashier for the appellant-Bank (employer) for which he had originally been employed---Furthermore, the respondent-employee was holding the said post at the time when he got involved in the criminal offence---Courts below misinterpreted the respondent's letter of termination as one of dismissal from service for misconduct which was not the case as was evident from the record as well as the contents of the letter of termination---Scope of inquiry of Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court was limited to the extent of determining whether or not the reasons given by the appellant-Bank justifying its action for termination in simpliciter were explicit, clear, enough and valid---Lower fora could not have gone on the premise that the respondent-employee had been dismissed from service for misconduct and the process for dismissal from service for misconduct namely a show cause notice, regular inquiry and order of dismissal had not been followed---Order of termination of services of the respondent-employee was in essence and for all intents and purposes, an order under S.O. 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, hence, it was a case of termination in simpliciter---Termination of the respondent-employee was not on account of misconduct and there was neither any requirement to issue a show cause notice, a charge sheet, regular inquiry and complete the process for dismissal on the ground of misconduct---Reason of termination of respondent's services was explicitly, clearly and unambiguously communicated to him and requirements of S.O. 12(3) of the Ordinance had properly and adequately been met---Order of termination in simpliciter passed by the appellant-Bank was affirmed, restored and upheld---Appeal was allowed.

ALLIED BANK LIMITED vs ZULFIQAR ALI SHAR S — 2021 PLC 191 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLC