1976 PLP 310 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus AUSAF ALI KHAN
| Citation | 1976 PLP 310 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus AUSAF ALI KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 310 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 310 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 310 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus AUSAF ALI KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Mahmood Mirza for Appellant.
- Saadulla Mumtaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A-Laches-Workman continuously representing his grievance to management without any result-Time spent on such representation, held, would not support plea of laches against workman.
Judgment & Decree
Zia Mahmood Mirza for Appellant. Saadulla 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 the 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 were that respondent is a Foreman. His grievance was that through an agreement dated 15-4-71 between the Manage ment 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. P. A.
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 not a right guaranteed by law, award or settlement. Exhibit P. A. 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 agree ment be not taken into consideration, even then appellant was entitled to grade II by dint 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. P. C. dated 12-1-73. This letter is by the Senior A 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 has been making representations and no decision was taken by 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.