1994 PLP 5 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus SALAMAT ALI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 5 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus SALAMAT ALI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 5 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 5 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 5 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus SALAMAT ALI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant,
- Ch. Muhammad Bashir for Respondent No. 1
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Transfer‑‑‑Employee was transferred to another station; but Station Master concerned refused to accept him and directed him to report for duty to office concerned‑‑‑On report, office directed Station Master to take employee on duty in compliance with earlier transfer order, but Station Master again refused to take him on duty and again directed him to report for duty to office‑‑‑Employee remained a shuttle cock and was not allowed to perform his duty at Station where he was transferred and wages of that period were also not paid to him‑‑‑Employer failed to establish that when Station Master refused to accept employee, employee was transferred to a different station and letter of such transfer was delivered to him‑‑‑Labour Court was perfectly justified to accept grievance petition of employee and to direct employer to allow duty to employee and pay him his wages till he was allowed to resume duty.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Bashir for Respondent No. 1 Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1993. This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dated 24th of August, 1992, whereby the grievance petition filed by Salamat Ali, respondent No. 1 was accepted and the appellant was directed to allow him duty and to pay him wages for the period from 24th of September, 1988 till he was allowed to resume duty.
2. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a Points-man with the Pakistan Railways. On 11th of June, 1988 when he was working at Wan Adhan Railway Station, he was transferred to Walton Railway Station vide order Exh. R.1. When respondent No. 1 in compliance with the order reported for duty at Walton Railway Station, Muhammad Saleem, respondent No. 2 who was Station Master of that Railway Station, refused to accept him and directed him to report for duty in the D.S. Office vide his letter dated 23rd of June, 1988 (Exh.R.2). Respondent No. 2 was again directed by the D.S. Office vide his letter dated 23rd of October, 1988 (Exh. R.3) to take respondent No. 1 on duty in compliance with the order dated 11th of June, 1988. Respondent No. 2 again refused. Respondent No.,1 remained a shuttle‑cock but he was not allowed to perform his duty at Walton Railway Station. Payment of his wages since 11th of June, 1988 was also stopped. After service of grievance notice (Exh. P.1) on 5th of November, 1988 respondent No. 1 filed a grievance petition on 24th of November, 1988 for a direction to the appellant and respondent No. 2 to allow him duty and also to pay him wages for the period from 24th of September, 1988 till he was allowed to resume duty.
3. The appellant and respondent No. 2 contested the grievance petition. They pleaded that respondent No. 1 was transferred to Kot Lakhpat Railway Station but he was intentionally neglecting to resume duty there.
4. Respondent No. 1 in support of his, grievance petition examined himself as PWA. In rebuttal also, only Sabir Ali, U.D.C. entered the witness box as RWA. After appraising the statements, the learned Labour Court believed the grievance of respondent No.1 and accepted his grievance petition. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The plea of the appellant is that when the Station Master of Walton Railway Station, respondent No. 2 refused to accept respondent No. 1 as Points-man, he was posted at Kot Lakhpat Railway Station on 27th of October, 1988 vide Exh.R.4 but he did not comply with this order. Respondent No. 1 deposed as PW.1 that when respondent No. 2 refused to allow him duty at Walton Railway Station, no further orders of his posting were conveyed to him. Sabir Ali, U.D.C. who appeared as witness of the appellant, said in his cross‑examination that he could not state if the letter Exh. R.4 was delivered to respondent No.
1. He further admitted that respondent No. 1 was not charge‑sheeted for his absence. From the testimony of respondent No. 1 coupled with the testimony of the witness of the appellant, it is evident that the orders posting respondent No. 1 at Kot Lakhpat Railway Station were not conveyed to him and his wages were withheld without show‑cause notice. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that respondent No. 1 has admitted in his cross‑examination that he was transferred to Kot Lakhpat Railway Station on 27th of October, 1988. This admission does not recoil on the grievance of respondent No.
1. He could not deny his transfer to Kot Lakhpat Railway Station in view of the existence of Exh. R.4 but the question is whether this Exh.R.4 was ever delivered to him. Respondent No. 1 categorically denies the receipt of this notice. This denial remains uncontroverted.
6. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court was perfectly justified to accept the grievance petition of respondent No. 1 and direct the appellant to allow duty to respondent No. 1 and pay him wages for the period from 24th of September, 1988 till he was allowed to resume duty.
7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./757/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.