2013 PLP 204 (PLC)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PESCO, PESHAWAR and 3 others Versus NUSHAD IQBAL
| Citation | 2013 PLP 204 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk, J |
| Parties | CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PESCO, PESHAWAR and 3 others Versus NUSHAD IQBAL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 204 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 204 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 204 (PLC) (CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PESCO, PESHAWAR and 3 others Versus NUSHAD IQBAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Neelam Khan for Appellant.
- Qazi Babar Irshad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 41 & 55
Appeal against acceptance of grievance petition
Scope
Employee whose services were terminated, filed grievance petition against order of his termination; which petition was accepted by the Labour Court
Labour Court while allowing the grievance petition of the employee had rightly concluded that order of termination was without lawful authority
Counsel for the employers could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment of the Labour Court, which being based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record did not require any interference by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.
The appellants through instant appeal prays for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 15-11-2010 of learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Peshawar whereby Grievance Petition of respondent Naushad Iqbal, Lineman was accepted and his termination from service was declared as without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was appointed as Assistant Lineman on 2-11-1995 after creation of a post of ALM by the competent authority on sport basis. On disintegration of WAPDA, the employees were given an option and respondent opted to join PESCO. On 6-6-2005, the Services and General Administration Office WAPDA Lahore issued letter dated 6-6-2005 whereby decision of authority was conveyed that all the work charged and contingent staff of WAPDA appointed before 5-2-1989 be converted into regular cadre in 2002 whereas those work charged staff appointed after 5-2-1989 be terminated forthwith. Respondent having rendered about more than 11 years satisfactory service was thus terminated from service, who filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which was accepted and appellants being aggrieved of the above decision have now filed instant appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. Perusal of record would reveal that respondent was appointed on a newly created post for appointment of a sportsman. The letter dated 6-6-2005, required various offices of appellants to submit cases to the Authority in consolidated form for decision. The Deputy Manager Operation, PESCO Division, Karak while forwarding the appeal of respondents against his termination from service to the Manager Operation, PESCO Circle, Bannu has observed that "Instead of waiting for the decision to be taken by the authority, the Ex-official was terminated by AMO PESCO Latamber", which clearly denotes the factum of discrimination having done to the respondent because the appellants were required to have submitted the case of respondent to the Authority for a proper decision particularly when case of respondent was also distinguishable from other work charged and contingent employees in the sense that appointment of respondent on the post was on sport basis and seat was also created for the said purpose, which as per record, is still vacant. In these circumstances, the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court while allowing the Grievance Petition of respondent has rightly concluded that order of termination of respondent was without lawful authority.
5. Learned counsel for appellants although argued the case at length but could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment of the Labour Court, which being based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record does not require any interference from this end.
6. The appeal in hand is hereby dismissed with no order. HBT/339/P Appeal dismisse