Citation Name : 2011 PLC 1007 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Brig. (R.) SAKHI MARJAN, CEO, PESCO, PESHAWAR
Side Opponent : MANAGING DIRECTOR PEPCO, LAHORE
Art. 185(3)—Contractual employment—Non-holding of inquiry—Termination of service—Remedy—Petitioner was employed in corporation on contract and he was terminated on the allegation of insubordination—Plea raised by petitioner was that no regular inquiry was held depriving him of opportunity of being heard–-Val idity—It was not necessary that inquiry must be held in each and every case as it depended upon circumstances of each case—Services of an employee could be terminated without holding regular inquiry for the reason that competent authority could dispense withholding of such inquiry especially when all negation leveled against employee was proved on the basis of documentary evidence—Employee of corporation, in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, coul d not press into service the constitutional or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service—Such employee could onl y claim damages against his wrongful dismissal or termination—High Court had rightly decl ined to interfere in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction for enforcement of contractual obligation—leave to appeal was refused.
Side Appellant : Brig. (R.) SAKHI MARJAN, CEO, PESCO, PESHAWAR
Side Opponent : MANAGING DIRECTOR PEPCO, LAHORE
Art. 185(3)—Contractual employment—Non-holding of inquiry—Termination of service—Remedy—Petitioner was employed in corporation on contract and he was terminated on the allegation of insubordination—Plea raised by petitioner was that no regular inquiry was held depriving him of opportunity of being heard–-Val idity—It was not necessary that inquiry must be held in each and every case as it depended upon circumstances of each case—Services of an employee could be terminated without holding regular inquiry for the reason that competent authority could dispense withholding of such inquiry especially when all negation leveled against employee was proved on the basis of documentary evidence—Employee of corporation, in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, coul d not press into service the constitutional or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service—Such employee could onl y claim damages against his wrongful dismissal or termination—High Court had rightly decl ined to interfere in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction for enforcement of contractual obligation—leave to appeal was refused.
No comments:
Post a Comment