2003 PLP 14 (PLC)
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HIGHWAY CIRCLE, FAISALABAD and another Versus ABDUL RAHIM and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP 14 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HIGHWAY CIRCLE, FAISALABAD and another Versus ABDUL RAHIM and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 14 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 14 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 14 (PLC) (SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HIGHWAY CIRCLE, FAISALABAD and another Versus ABDUL RAHIM and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ikram with Saifullah Niazi, S.D.O. for Petitioners.
- Ch. Irshad Ullah Chattha for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ikram with Saifullah Niazi, S.D.O. for Petitioners. Ch. Irshad Ullah Chattha for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th July, 2002. The admitted facts of this case are that the respondent No. 1 was employed as a workcharge employee in the establishment. of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved that his services are not being regularized and he is not being made a permanent employee he filed grievance petition before Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad. He sought a declaration that he is a regular employee. This petition was heard ex parte and after recording evidence the grievance petition of the petitioner was allowed on 18ā10ā1993 and a direction was issued to the petitioners to regularize the services of the respondent No.
1. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was heard by the learned respondent No.2 who proceeded to dismiss the same on 14ā3ā1996.
2. Learned counsel with reference to the case of Province of Punjab and others v. Gul Hassan and others 1992 PLC 924 argues that the impugned orders are wholly without lawful authority. Learned counsel for the respondent has not much to say regarding the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. I have already stated the admitted factual background of the case above. Now vide the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court almost in similar circumstances where relief was granted by the Labour Court and appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and writ petition was dismissed by this Court, appeal of the petitioners was allowed. After reference to the West Pakistan Buildings and Roads Department Code the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows in para. 4 of the judgment:āā-- "Rules 1.107, 1.108 and 1.109 of the Buildings and Roads Departments Code deal with the working conditions of workcharged establishment in extenso. In view of such statutory rules being in existence and applicable to the respondent, the application, invocation and reference to the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance was out of place and misdirected. The workcharged establishment cannot be declared permanent under the rules applicable to them, nor can they be granted all the benefits available to permanent employees including seniority, promotion and service being treated as pensionable etc." In this view of the matter since the impugned judgments proceed in violation of the said law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the same are declared to be without lawful authority. The writ petition accordingly is allowed and the impugned judgments of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal at Lahore and the learned Punjab Labour Court, Faisalabad are set aside. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./Sā481/L Petition allowed.