1989 PLP 87 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus ABDUL AZIZ
| Citation | 1989 PLP 87 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | - Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus ABDUL AZIZ |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 87 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 87 (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: 1989 PLP 87 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus ABDUL AZIZ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Shafique for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Railway employee‑‑Transfer of‑‑Employee due to retire within 3 years entitled to remain at a station of his choice near home district and not to be transferred elsewhere‑‑Benefit of rule, held, could not be claimed by those intending to seek premature retirement. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Shafique for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 29th June, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 17‑5‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent has been transferred from Railway Station Makhdoompur to Bakhshan Khan Railway Station vide order dated 22‑2‑1987 and he has challenged that order in his petition brought under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and applied for adinterim stay. The learned lower Court found that the respondent has a prima facie case inasmuch as he said that he would apply for L.P.R. after two years. Since the post was transferable, the transfer order may be in the exigencies of service. The respondent has argued that his retirement is due after one and a half years, therefore, he is according to the rules, entitled to remain at a place of his choice situated near his home district. But in the grievance petition it is not said so. It is urged in the grievance petition that in the grievance notice he had informed the petitioner that he intended to go on L.P.R. after two years. Firstly, no copy of the grievance notice is on the record and secondly in the grievance petition it is not mentioned that retirement is due within 3 years. If the respondent wishes to go on retirement prematurely he cannot take benefit of the rules that within three years of the retirement he has to remain at the place of his choice.
3. The learned lower Court has said nothing about the other two ingredients, namely, that the balance of convenience goes in favour of the respondent and by the transfer order he is likely to suffer irreparable injury, which may not be calculated in terms of money. Needless to say that unless all the three ingredients are satisfied no one can ask for a stay order.
4. As a result the revision is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The learned lower Court is directed to re‑decide the application for stay in the light 'of the observations made above after allowing the respondent to place on the record copy of the grievance notice. The date fixed in the main case in the learned lower Court is tomorrow. Stay order is extended till tomorrow. A.E/393/Lb. P. Revision accepted.