IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman. 
 
Civil Petition No. 1702/2015. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 26.05.2015 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, 
in C. P. No. D-1306/2012) 
 
M.C.B. Bank Limited, Karachi. 
 
 
 
Petitioner(s). 
 
Versus 
 
Abdul Waheed Abro, etc.  
 
 
 
Respondent(s). 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR. 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
 
N.R. 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
30.09.2015. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, J: -  The 
petitioner, 
through 
this 
petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 26.05.2015 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in C. P. 
No. D-1306/2012, whereby it upheld the judgments of the fora below and 
dismissed the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner. 
2. 
The concise facts giving rise to the instant petition are that 
respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent”) was 
performing his duties as Cashier at the petitioner’s branch at Rohri when a 
complaint against him was received that he has failed to credit on the same 
day an amount of Rs.187,434/- on 28.05.2003. After a probe, charge sheet 
was issued to him on 12.06.2003 and after inquiry he was dismissed from 
service on 09.08.2003. After dismissal from service, the respondent served 
a grievance notice to the petitioner which was not responded to and 
resultantly he filed grievance application under Section 46 of the Industrial 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
2 
 
Relations Ordinance, 2002, before the Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur 
(hereinafter to be referred as “the Labour Court”). The said grievance 
application was allowed by the Labour Court vide judgment dated 
13.10.2005 and he was ordered to be reinstated in service without back 
benefits. Thereafter, the respondent as well as the petitioner challenged the 
judgment of the Labour Court before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, 
Karachi (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) by filing their 
respective appeals. The respondent in his appeal had assailed denial of back 
benefits whereas the petitioner in its appeal had assailed reinstatement of 
the respondent. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 27.02.2012 dismissed 
the appeal of the respondent for non-prosecution whereas the appeal of the 
petitioner was disposed of with the modification that the dismissal order 
was converted into stoppage of increments for three years. However, the 
Tribunal maintained the order of reinstatement in service passed by the 
Labour Court. The respondent did not agitate the matter further, but the 
petitioner assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below before the 
High Court by filing a constitutional petition which has been dismissed 
vide impugned order while maintaining concurrent orders of reinstatement 
in service of the respondent and also maintained the findings of the 
Tribunal regarding stoppage of increments for three years of the 
respondent, hence this petition for leave to appeal. 
3. 
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts 
below have failed to appreciate that a proper inquiry had been conducted. 
The charge of misappropriation leveled against the respondent stood fully 
established, in fact he had accepted his guilt in writing pursuant to which 
his uncle namely Allah Lok Abro had undertook to pay an amount of 
Rs.160,000/- and subsequently the same was deposited. That the respondent 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
3 
 
at no stage had complained about the conduct of the inquiry officer or the 
inquiry proceedings. The Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion 
that irregularity had been committed in the inquiry proceedings by not 
allowing the respondent to cross-examine all the witnesses. The respondent 
duly cross-examined the main witness as such no prejudice had been 
caused to him. Even otherwise, if the Courts below had come to the 
conclusion that the inquiry had not been properly conducted the option 
should have been given to the petitioner to conduct a fresh inquiry. It was 
further contended that in fact the Tribunal by awarding the penalty of 
stoppage of increments for three years to the respondent fully indicates that 
the charge against him stood established and in this regard he placed 
reliance upon the case of Iqbal Ahmed vs. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 
(2009 SCMR 903). It was also contended that the High Court had failed to 
notice that with the repeal of Industrial Relations Ordinance there was no 
lis before the Tribunal in view of the fact that Industrial Relations 
Ordinance, 1969 was repealed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, 
which then was further repealed by Industrial Relations Act, 2008, 
therefore, neither the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 nor the 
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could be revived on the strength of 
Section 6 of the General Clause Act, 1897, or Article 264 of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and in this regard he placed 
reliance upon the case of Air League of PIAC Employees through 
President vs. Federation of Pakistan M/o Labour and Manpower 
Division, Islamabad and others (2011 SCMR 1254). The learned counsel 
while concluding his arguments urged that with the huge computerization 
of banking sector the manual operation by personnel have become 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
4 
 
redundant as such the banks are already over-staffed so where will the 
respondent be posted. 
4. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone 
through the judgments of the Courts below as well as the material available 
on the record. 
5. 
The allegation against the respondent, who was working as a Cashier 
at the Rohri branch of the petitioner, was that he committed embezzlement 
or misappropriation which he had denied through his grievance application 
as being false and frivolous. He rather attributed it to human error. He 
further contended that he had not been given proper opportunity of fair trial 
by the inquiry officer as he had not been given the chance of cross-
examining all the witnesses. The Labour Court after framing of issues and 
recording of evidence had come to the conclusion as under: - 
“28/- 
From the perusal of the record it appears that there is lacuna and 
flaws in the case of the respondents because the Enquiry Officer did not 
provide opportunity to the applicant to cross examine the witnesses. The 
Enquiry Officer in his cross examination has admitted that on behalf of 
the management the statement of witness Irshad Soomro, Altaf Hussain 
Manager Ghulam Mustafa Accountant, Kashif Shaikh Cashier, 
Muhammad Hassan and Abdul Raseed Ansari were recorded but the 
opportunity for cross examination to the accused (applicant) was only 
given to the extent of witness Irshad Ali Soomro. 
29. 
The aforesaid admission on the part of Enquiry Officer clearly 
shows that he had recorded the statements of as many as 6 witnesses, but 
opportunity for cross examination was only given to the extent of Irshad 
Ali Soomro representative of management, who too was not examined 
and produced by the management in court. 
30. 
It is also an admitted fact that applicant was handed over in 
police custody on the very same day without registration of any criminal 
case and was not released unless the payment of the alleged amount was 
paid by the Uncle of the applicant. The management has also failed to 
prove that it was a case of misconduct on the part of the applicant and he 
has mis-appropriated the amount where as the version of the applicant 
was that the said amount was obtained/received from him by the 
Manager Altaf Khan. It has also come on evidence that on very same day 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
5 
 
in the morning hours when cash was no shortage/short fall of any kind. It 
is settled law that the Labor Laws are to be interpreted in favour of the 
workmen and in view of the discrepancies/lacunas as referred above I am 
of the opinion that it was not a case of misappropriation where major 
penalty of dismissal from service to be awarded. Admittedly no 
monetary loss is sustained by the Bank nor there any complaint and 
evidence against applicant in respect of amount credited after 2 to 3 days 
in the account of Mehran Corporation. The issue is therefore answered 
that it is not the case of misappropriation or pocketing hence issue is 
answered against the management. 
31. 
In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 3, the impugned order 
of dismissal issued on 9.8.2003 by the respondents Bank is hereby set 
aside and applicant is reinstated in service, however, not entitled to the 
back benefits. The respondents is directed to reinstate the applicant in 
service within a period of 30 days.” 
 
The Tribunal while modifying the judgment of the Labour Court held as 
under: - 
“ 
Perusal of record reveals that a domestic enquiry had been 
conducted and the said Enquiry Officer was examined before learned 
Labour Court who had admitted that he was given opportunity to the 
respondent worker to cross-examination only one witness of the bank, 
while he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the other 
witnesses of the bank. However during the domestic enquiry the worker 
was not provided opportunity to cross-examine the other witnesses. He 
had allowed the management to cross-examine the respondent worker 
during domestic enquiry and the said cross-examination reveals that the 
respondent worker has leveled allegations against the Manager who on 
information submitted by the respondent worker initiated action against 
him as the respondent worker himself admitted during cross-examination 
in the domestic enquiry that he pointed out about the shortage of cash to 
the Manager and he has also gone to his friends/customers for the 
arrangement of cash and thereafter he allegedly handed over to Police. 
This statement of respondent worker is a proof that there is some 
negligence/fault of the respondent worker that’s why the cash was 
shortened and which created problems. Perusal of the entire record leads 
me to the conclusion that there must be some responsibilities lie upon the 
respondent worker for which he has been rightly charge sheeted and 
domestic enquiry was conducted, therefore, I am of the view that the 
management of the bank is entitled to proceed against the respondent 
worker and as because I find some responsibility of respondent worker, 
therefore, due to the lacunas in the domestic enquiry, I feel that major 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
6 
 
punishment as awarded by the bank cannot be awarded without 
following the proper procedure of enquiry and as the worker had already 
faced the problem of unemployment, therefore, I modify the order of the 
learned Labour Court of straight away accepting the grievance of the 
respondent worker without considering the lapses on the part of the 
worker, hence the punishment of dismissal from service shall be 
converted into stoppage of increment for three years, however, 
reinstatement order of the learned Labour Court is maintained. Here, I 
have to mention that the appeal of the respondent worker against the 
refusal of back benefits as pointed out has already been dismissed in 
default for non-prosecution by the Tribunal, therefore, there is no 
question of the grant of back benefits. 
 
In view of the above modification the present appeal filed by the 
appellant bank is disposed of accordingly.” 
 
The High Court while maintaining the concurrent findings of reinstatement 
in service of the respondent came to the conclusion that, “……he was not 
afforded fair opportunity to defend the charges. Even the inquiry officer 
appeared in the labour court as witness of management/petitioner also 
admitted the lapses, oversights and shortcomings in the inquiry. During 
inquiry, the inquiry officer only allowed the respondent No. 1 to cross 
examine Irshad Ali Soomro, representative of the management and the 
respondent No. 1 was cross examined by Irshad Ali Soomro. The 
representative of management produced at least six more witnesses before 
the inquiry officer but no opportunity of cross examination was made 
available to respondent No. 1. This fact was admitted by the inquiry officer, 
Shaif Muhammad Shaikh during the cross examination in the labour 
court…….”  
6. 
Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent had not been 
afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself as it is quite evident 
that six witnesses were produced during the inquiry, but the respondent was 
afforded the opportunity of cross examining only one witness namely 
Irshad Ali Soomro. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
7 
 
has held in the case of Muhammad Ataullah vs. Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan and 2 others (1999 SCMR 2321) as under: - 
“6. 
We find that the stoppage of promotion of a civil servant for a 
specified period on the charge of carelessness in the discharge of duties 
is as serious a matter as convicting a person for crime because his whole 
career is ruined, therefore, the order of stoppage of promotion must be 
based on some evidence. This is according to us a serious lapse on the 
part of the authorized officer to have not afforded an opportunity of 
cross-examining the prosecution witnesses appearing against the 
appellant in support of the charges. Having omitted to afford this 
opportunity to the appellant, resulting in the impugned order, it was 
violative of the principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim: “audi 
alteram partem” the impugned order is, thus, vitiated on this score 
alone.” 
 
That after the induction of Article 10A in the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it would postulate that opportunity of fair trial 
had not been afforded to the respondent by depriving him his right of cross-
examining the witnesses as such it could be held that principles and 
procedures of due process of law and fair trial had not been followed, 
which are against the principle of natural justice. As regards the contention 
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below should have 
ordered de novo trial which would have served the purpose of justice, 
suffice it to say that the High Court had rightly dealt with this aspect in the 
following manner: - 
“10. 
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that instead of 
reinstatement of respondent No. 1 the labour court could have directed 
the petitioner to hold fresh inquiry. The inquiry was initiated in the year 
2003. The labour court decided the matter in the month of October, 2005, 
while the appeal was decided by the labour appellate court in the month 
of February, 2012. Since then the respondent No. 1 is facing miseries of 
protracted trial that by no means responsible or accountable for the 
defects perceptible and discernable in the inquiry, there is no rationality 
to order fresh inquiry which will make the petitioner back to square 
without his fault hence we do not want to dwell too much in this 
regard……” 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
8 
 
 
As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty 
imposed on the respondent of stoppage of increments for three years is 
concerned, we are of the view that this contention does not carry much 
force when the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent 
had not been afforded proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as 
such the respondent has been deprived of the due process of fair trial which 
being against the principle of natural justice. As regard the contention of 
the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to posting of the respondent 
upon reinstatement is concerned, we would like to least comment on the 
same as it has rightly been observed by the High Court that it is the 
prerogative of the management of the petitioner to decide the 
designation/posting of the respondent in accordance with their norms and 
indoor management. As far as the contention of the learned counsel 
regarding the effect of repeal of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 is 
concerned, we are of the opinion that the said argument is not well founded. 
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, operates in such a manner that 
it allows for the effect of an enactment repealed by any Central Act to 
continue even after such repeal. A perusal of Section 6 of the Act ibid 
reflects the same: - 
“6. Effect of repeal: Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation 
made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment 
hitherto made or hereinafter to be made then, unless a different intention 
appears, the repeal shall not-- 
 
(a) 
revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which 
the repeal takes effect; or 
 
(b) 
affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed 
or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or 
 
(c) 
affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, 
accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or 
 
(d) 
affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect 
of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or 
 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
9 
 
(e) 
affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of 
any such right, privilege, obligation liability, penalty forfeiture 
or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal 
proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, 
and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed 
as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.” 
 
In the present case Section 6 of the Act ibid shall apply as the initial 
grievance application filed in the said Labour Court was made under the 
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which was repealed by a Central Act 
i.e., Industrial Relations Act, 2008, thereby fulfilling the requirement of 
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and bringing it into operation. 
It is also pertinent here to distinguish between the present case and the case 
law relied upon by the learned counsel i.e., Air League (supra), in support 
of his contention. In the said case, the statute governing the dispute was the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2008 which was repealed not by a Central Act as 
was the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, but by a sunset clause i.e., 
Section 87(3), present within the framework of the statute itself. For ready 
reference Section 87(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, is reproduced 
herein below: - 
 
 
“87. 
Repeal and savings: -……………….. 
 
(3) 
This Act shall, unless repealed earlier, stand repealed on 30th 
April, 2010.” 
 
Thus the case cited in support of learned counsel’s contention stands 
distinguished. Moreover, it is also necessary to clarify that the mandate 
contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not call for 
the revival of a repealed law but rather imputes finality to actions already 
undertaken. 
7. 
In the above perspective, we are not inclined to interfere in the well 
reasoned concurrent judgments of all the Courts below while exercising our 
jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
C. P. No. 1702/2015. 
 
10 
 
Pakistan, 1973. Resultantly, leave to appeal is refused and petition is 
dismissed. 
 
Judge. 
 
 
 
Judge. 
ISLAMABAD. 
30.09.2015. 
(Farrukh) 
 
Approved for Reporting.