UNITED BANK LTD. and others vs ABDUL KHALIQ and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by United Bank Limited against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's order reinstating the respondent cashier after his dismissal following a conviction by a Summary Military Court for hoarding. The core legal question concerned the validity of the dismissal from service without affording an opportunity to explain his position and the consequent feasibility of reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent was willing to be appointed as an Assistant in any capacity and did not insist on his former post of cashier—thereby addressing the Bank's apprehension regarding his conviction by a military court—no subsisting grievance remained. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that willingness to accept an alternative assignment can resolve practical impediments to reinstatement following dismissal.
- Whether an employee dismissed following a conviction by a Summary Military Court can be reinstated to service?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity to explain position vitiate an order of dismissal from service?
- Can an employee waive the right to reinstatement in a specific former post to facilitate settlement and re-employment?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondent was a cashier in the zonal office of the United Bank Limited at Okara. He was also running a sugar depot. He was convicted by a Summary Military Court for indulging in hoarding and was ultimately sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. Consequent upon his conviction the Bank dismissed him from service. The petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court but it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement on the ground that before dismissing him from service, he had not been given an opportunity to explain his position. The Bank challenged the order of the learned Tribunal in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but without any success. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. 2 The only grievance of the learned counsel for the Bank is that as respondent No,1 has been convicted by a Special Military Court, it is not possible to reinstate him in his former post of cashier and that the respondent is not prepared to accept any other appointment under the Bank. The respondent is present in person and he has filed a statement to the effect that he is prepared to serve the Bank as Assistant in any capacity and that he does not insist that he must be posted as cashier. In view of this undertaking there should be now no grievance to the Bank. Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.