1990 PLP 428 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, LARKANA DIVISION, LARKANA and 2 others
| Citation | 1990 PLP 428 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | VIth Labour Court Sindh |
| Bench Members | Nazir Ahmad Akhund Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, LARKANA DIVISION, LARKANA and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 428 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 428 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the VIth Labour Court Sindh bench comprising: Nazir Ahmad Akhund Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 428 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, LARKANA DIVISION, LARKANA and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmad, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
- M.Bashir Awan for Respondent No.3.
- Heard Advocate for the opponent No.3, the A.G.P. for opponent No.1 and the Representative of the applicant.
- 2. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the opponent No.3 that as per para. No.2 of the grievance petition the applicant was retrenched in 1983 whereas .the opponent No.3 was appointed after 5 years in the year 1988 and as such the grievance petition tiled after 5 years is time‑barred. He also contended that as per Standing Order No. 14 retrenched workmen can be re‑employed within one year and as such the right of retrenched person for re‑employment is secured and guaranteed only for one year and not beyond that, even the grievance petition is not maintainable being against the spirit of statutory provision of law. In this respect reliance was placed on 1981 S C M R 802.
- 3. The learned A.G.P. for opponent No.1 has also endorsed the views of the learned Advocate for the opponent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI or 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O.14‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1909), S.25‑A‑‑‑Retrenched staff‑‑‑Re‑employment of‑‑‑Competency of application for ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Re employment of retrenched worker is secured and guaranteed for one year only and not beyond that‑‑‑Letter from Government after expiry of period of one year of retrenchment stating that retrenched persons should have preferential right to vacant posts, held, could not have amending effect upon S.O.14 which is a statutory and mandatory provision‑‑‑Petition for re‑employment made after 5 years of retrenchment was not only time‑barred but incompetent. 1981 S C M R 802 rel. Rana Mehmood Ali for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Rafiq Ahmad, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. M.Bashir Awan for Respondent No.3. Heard Advocate for the opponent No.3, the A.G.P. for opponent No.1 and the Representative of the applicant.
2. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the opponent No.3 that as per para. No.2 of the grievance petition the applicant was retrenched in 1983 whereas .the opponent No.3 was appointed after 5 years in the year 1988 and as such the grievance petition tiled after 5 years is time‑barred. He also contended that as per Standing Order No. 14 retrenched workmen can be re‑employed within one year and as such the right of retrenched person for re‑employment is secured and guaranteed only for one year and not beyond that, even the grievance petition is not maintainable being against the spirit of statutory provision of law. In this respect reliance was placed on 1981 S C M R 802.
3. The learned A.G.P. for opponent No.1 has also endorsed the views of the learned Advocate for the opponent No.3.
4. The learned Representative for the applicant contended that a letter was issued by Section Officer on 27‑9‑1984 in which the directions were given that the retrenched persons shall be given chance to be re‑employed if and when vacancy occurs and this has secured and guaranteed the right of the applicant.
5. As has been admitted by the applicant that he was retrenched in 1983 and therefore his right of re‑employment as per Standing Order No.14 was secured only for one year and not beyond that. On the face reading of the grievance petition it not only appears to be time‑barred but incompetent as per Standing Order No.14.
6. The contortion of the learned Representative of the applicant that since the letter was issued by the Section Officer of the concerned department by which it was directed that the retrenched person shall have the preferential right to the vacant post does not carry any weight for the reasons that this letter was issued on 27‑9‑1984 after the right of applicant to re‑employment within one year, as per Standing Order No.14, had expired and this letter cannot have the amending effect upon Standing Order No.14 which is statutory and mandatory provision. In this view of the matter I find that the Grievance Petition is not only time‑barred but barred by Standing Order No.14 and as such is liable to be rejected. Accordingly I allow this application and reject the grievance petition. A.E./1329/Lb.S Petition rejected.