1976 PLP 20 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus AUSAF ALI SHAH
| Citation | 1976 PLP 20 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus AUSAF ALI SHAH |
| Primary Law | (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 20 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 20 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 20 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus AUSAF ALI SHAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Mahmood for Appellant.
- Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A-Road Transport Workers (Foremen) case-Board's order indicating that all Foremen recruited directly will also be given Grade II after completion of three years service - Petitioner Foreman, in circumstances, held, entitled to Grade II after having completed 3 years service even though such order could not be termed as a settlement. --S. 25-A-Delay-Petitioner throughout making representations
No decision taken by Management on such representations till date of filing petition-Objection that petition was time-barred, in circumstances, rejected.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
S. 25-A-Delay-Petitioner throughout making representations
No decision taken by Management on such representations till date of filing petition-Objection that petition was time-barred, in circumstances, rejected. Zia Mahmood for Appellant. Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 6-8-74 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the respondent by which order petition was accepted, hence this appeal by the Management.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.
3. Facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent is a Foreman. His grievance was that through an agreement dated 15-4-71 between the Management and the union, he had been granted grade II for which he had been qualified after completion of his three years service. An extract of that settlement is Exh. PA.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the order of the Junior Labour Court on the ground that Exh. P A cannot be termed as a settlement. At the most it is an agreement and an agreement cannot be enforced, as it is any right guaranteed by law, award or settlement. Exh. P B is a photostat copy of an order by the Secretary P.R.T.B and its relevant para is that all those Foremen who were directly recruited will also be given grade II after completion of three years service. If this agreement be not taken into consideration, even then appellant was entitled to Grade II by distinction of this order.
5. In the second place learned counsel for the appellant has urged that petition under section 25-A of the respondent was time-barred. In this respect contention of the respondent is that he had been making representations to the department but P.R.T.B never took any decision. In this respect he has referred me to Exh. PC dated 12-12-74. This letter is by the Senior Technical Officer, P.R.T.B and it is addressed to the District Manager for getting some information in order to finalise the case of the respondent, regarding his fixation of pay. So it is clear that respondent had been making representa tions and no decision was taken by the P.R.T.B, hence no laches are involved.
6. For the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to interfere into the order of the Junior Labour Court. It is therefore, upheld and appeal is rejected.