1983 PLP 1970 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MOHSIN ALI
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1970 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MOHSIN ALI |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1970 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1970 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1983 PLP 1970 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MOHSIN ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajjad Hussain for Appellant.
- Hamid Ali Qureshi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 12th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. O. 12 (3) ‑ Termination simpliciter ‑‑ Explicit ground Services no longer required" when post not indicated to have been abolished‑Not an explicit ground.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal emanates from the decision dated 25th May, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without passing any order as to back benefits.
2. The respondent was a Hammerman. His services were terminated on the ground that they were no longer required. Neither while passing termination order, nor in the written statement, nor in the evidence, it was stated that the post held by the respondent was abolished. Simply saying that his services were no longer required is not explicit ground of termina tion. The provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders ,e Ordinance, 1968 were, therefore not complied with. Even the provisions of Standing Order 12(1) were not fulfilled because it is nowhere stated that one month's notice of termination, or one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to the respondent. The respondent was, therefore, rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
3. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. A.E. Appeal dismissed.