1988 PLP 661 (PLC(CS))
Syed NASIM HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, P. R.T. C., LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 661 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Iran Lodhi, |
| Parties | Syed NASIM HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, P. R.T. C., LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 661 (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 661 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Iran Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 661 (PLC(CS)) (Syed NASIM HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, P. R.T. C., LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioner.
- Shafiqul Islam for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Transfer of worker‑‑Petition challenging transfer order dismissed by lower Court without considering facts of case and without giving grounds for such dismissal‑‑Order of lower Court set aside and lower Court was directed to readied petition of worker.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Transfer of worker‑‑Petition challenging transfer order dismissed by lower Court without considering facts of case and without giving grounds for such dismissal‑‑Order of lower Court set aside and lower Court was directed to readied petition of worker. Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioner. Shafiqul Islam for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1987. In this revision the order dated 19‑1‑1987 has been challenged whereby the application of the petitioner challenging his posting as ticket issuing clerk was dismissed. In the impugned order neither facts of the case nor grounds for refusing the prayer are given. The order shows that the petitioner was, transferred from one post to other and that order was challenged before the learned lower Court. The real facts are that the post of duty clerk was abolished on 24‑1‑1985 and the petitioner challenged the said order in his grievance petition and applied for issuing a status quo order to maintain status quo so that he could continue to work as duty clerk. The petition was opposed but stay order to the effect that status quo shall be maintained was issued. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was posted as ticket issuing clerk not in the pendency of his grievance petition but much before that on 21‑1‑1986 when the post of the duty clerk was abolished. The learned lower Court has not in the impugned order given the facts of the case nor has said anything whether the posting of the petitioner as ticket issuing clerk is dated B 24‑1‑1985 or that such an order was passed in the pendency of the grievance petition and in the subsistence of the status quo order. Since all these facts were not considered the impugned order is not sustainable.
2. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the learned lower Court is directed to re‑decide the application of the petitioner, dated 13‑1‑1987. M.Y.H./333/Lb.P Case remanded.