1988 PLP 725 (PLC(CS))
TALIB HUSSAIN and 8 others Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 725 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TALIB HUSSAIN and 8 others Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 725 (PLC(CS))?
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 725 (PLC(CS))?
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 725 (PLC(CS)) (TALIB HUSSAIN and 8 others Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.A. Latif for Appellants.
- Ch. Khalil ur Rehman for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Scope‑‑Promotion‑‑Function of employer‑‑Court cannot pass direction for promotion but can direct consideration of employee for promotion on basis of seniority and rules.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Scope‑‑Promotion‑‑Function of employer‑‑Court cannot pass direction for promotion but can direct consideration of employee for promotion on basis of seniority and rules. S.A. Latif for Appellants. Ch. Khalil ur Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 12‑12‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants was partly accepted and the respondents were directed to give pay of the post of Train Clerks to the appellants from the date they were called upon to perform duties on the said post.
2. The substantive posts of the appellants Nos.l to 4 are Pointmen and of appellants Nos. 5 to 9 Cabinmen and of the remaining as Shunting Porters. They, about five years ago were made to work as Train Clerks. The appellants on the basis of a notification Exh. P.l claimed to be regularised and confirmed as Train Clerks and be given salary of the said post alongwith the arrears and increments. The remaining prayers have been disallowed by the learned lower Court on the ground that they were never regularly promoted and that they cannot be promoted unless they undergo, specific course of training. Whatever relief the Court could allow should have been allowed. This is true that direction of promotion cannot be passed as it is the function of the employer but the Courts are competent to direct that the employees be considered for promotion under rules and subject to seniority. I accordingly accepting the appeal modify the order of the learned lower Court and direct that the appellants be considered for promotion in order of seniority and in accordance with the rules. A. E. /504/ Lb. P Appeal accepted.