RUSTAM ALI KHAN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Constitution Petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the termination of the petitioner's employment as an officer of the Allied Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner, having absented himself from duty without sanctioned leave, sought voluntary retirement, which was not processed before his termination for unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's employment was governed by statutory rules, thereby allowing for judicial review of his termination under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's employment was not statutory in nature and that the bank's Staff Rules did not qualify as statutory rules. Consequently, the Court found no violation of law or statutory provisions in the termination order. The key principle laid down is that employment in nationalized banks, despite the Banks Nationalization Act 1974, does not automatically confer statutory status upon the terms and conditions of service or the internal Staff Rules of such institutions, thereby limiting the scope of constitutional petitions regarding service disputes in this context.
- Does the employment of an officer in a nationalized bank constitute statutory employment?
- Do the Staff Rules of a nationalized bank qualify as statutory rules for the purpose of judicial review?
- Can a termination order based on unauthorized absence be challenged via a Constitution Petition if the employment is not governed by statutory rules?
- Section 13, Banks Nationalization Act 1974
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner, an Officer earlier employed by one of the nationalized Banks- -respondent No, 1, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7- 10-1985 whereby the Constitution Petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner was employed as an officer in the Allied Bank of Pakistan and had rendered long service. He absented himself from duty on 20th November, 1982 and started submitting medical certificates asking for leave which was not granted to him. In March, 1983, he applied for voluntary retirement after rendering twenty-five years service. His request remained unattended and a termination order was handed over to him which is dated 19th of March, 1985 and he was treated as on unauthorised absence. He challenged this action by filing a Constitution Petition which was dismissed mainly on the ground that no law or statutory rule was violated and the Staff Rules did not qualify as the statutory rules nor was the employment of the Petitioner statutory.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that after the nationalization of banks the Executive Board controlled the employees and the
4. The contention of the learned counsel could have some merit if a specific provision, namely section 13 of the banks nationalization Act 1974, had not made provision for it. That provision referred to by the learned Judge preserves and protects the nature of the employment and the terms and conditions on which it is enjoyed subject to certain statutory provisions which are not in dispute in the proceedings before us. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Staff Rules make provision for passing of such an order as has been passed in the case in hand. As regards the contention that there is a stigma with regard to unauthorised absence during the period after 20th November, 1982, all that can be said at this stage is that is a fact not denied by the Petitioner himself because he had not obtained proper leave. He had only made applications about it. There appears no merit and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- HABIB BANK LTD. through President and others vs Rana MUHAMMAD ASHIQ 2010 PLC (C.S.) 93