PLC 1988

1988 PLP 578 (PLC)

Syed MUSAWWAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Revision No. MN‑310 of 1986, decided on 26th May, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1988 PLP 578 (PLC)
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
Parties Syed MUSAWWAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN
Primary Law Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 578 (PLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 578 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 578 (PLC) (Syed MUSAWWAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

Representation

  • Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑‑Transfer‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑Office‑bearer of Trade Union challenging transfer on grounds of victimisationTransfer not involving change of station‑‑Neither any inconvenience nor any irreparable injury likely to be suffered‑‑Application for ad interim stay, held, was rightly rejected‑‑Revision against order of Labour Court was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑‑Transfer‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑Office‑bearer of Trade Union challenging transfer on grounds of victimisationTransfer not involving change of station‑‑Neither any inconvenience nor any irreparable injury likely to be suffered‑‑Application for ad interim stay, held, was rightly rejected‑‑Revision against order of Labour Court was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. Petitioner in person. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986. The order dated 14‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan is reported to be wrong.

2. The petitioner was store‑keeper workshop. He has been transferred to Stationery Stores. He has challenged the order of his transfer in a grievance petition brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His application for ad interim stay has been rejected by the impugned order. The case of the petitioner is that as he is President of Labour Union, therefore, he has been victimized. Since the petitioner is at the same station, he can perform his duties as President of Union, so it cannot be said that due to union activities he has been mala fide transferred. As he has not been transferred to any out station, so no question of inconvenience arises. It is not the case of the petitioner that in some other scale he has been transferred. If ultimately his grievance petition succeeds, he can be sent back to the workshop stores, so he is not likely to suffer any irreparable injury. It has been argued that he has suffered in seniority. There is nothing on the record in support of this apprehension of the petitioner. So, hips petition has been rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, the revision fails and is thus dismissed in limine. A. E./116/Lb.P Petition dismissed,