1991 PLP 891 (PLC(CS))
DISTRICT MANAGER, KTC, KARACHI Versus NAZIR AHMED and 7 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 891 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, KTC, KARACHI Versus NAZIR AHMED and 7 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 891 (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 1991 PLP 891 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 891 (PLC(CS)) (DISTRICT MANAGER, KTC, KARACHI Versus NAZIR AHMED and 7 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latif Saghar for Respondents Nos. 1 and 8.
- Yousuf Khan, Representative for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7,
- 2. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the applicants and Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 8, so also Mr. Yousuf Khan, learned representative for respondents Nos. 2 to 7.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Status quo‑‑‑Order of Labour Court directing status quo in favour of workmen pending decision of their grievance application had been challenged by employer through revision‑‑‑Employer had partly admitted claim of workmen regarding promotion to higher grade as certain conductors and one driver had been promoted by employer in higher grade‑‑‑Tribunal had also maintained ad interim stay order issued by Labour Court in earlier case‑‑‑Case was not fit to be interfered with by Tribunal in its suo motu revisional power. Revision Applications Nos. KAR‑119 to 127 of 1991 and 134 of 1991 ref, Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Applicants. Latif Saghar for Respondents Nos. 1 and
8. Yousuf Khan, Representative for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7, I propose to dispose of all the aforementioned 8 suo motu Revision Applications by this single order as points of fact and law involved in all the applications are same or similar.
2. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the applicants and Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 8, so also Mr. Yousuf Khan, learned representative for respondents Nos. 2 to 7.
3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that all the respondents were initially employed by the applicants as conductors. They claim that since several years they have been working in higher grade as Traffic Assistants. However, the applicant by order, dated 27-11-1990 directed the respondents to work again as conductors. The respondents claim that by operation of Standing Orders Ordinance and other rules of service, they would be deemed to have been permanently appointed in the higher grade and therefore their re-appointment, as conductors would amount to reversion. They, therefore, after serving grievance notice, filed separate grievance petitions before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court directed the maintenance of status quo pending the decision of grievance application, which orders have been challenged by the applicant by these suo motu revision applications.
4. Mr. Latif Saghar submits that applicants have, in fact; partly admitted the claim of the respondents as by an order, dated 23-4-1991, 17 Conductors and one driver had been promoted in higher grade. He has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal, dated 28-4-1991, in suo motu Revision Applications Nos. KAR-119 to 127 of 1991 and 134 of 1991, wherein ad interim Stay Order of learned Labour Court No. I, under similar circumstances, was maintained by this Tribunal.
5. In view of the above circumstances, I do not consider it fit and proper to interfere with the impugned orders of learned Labour Court in exercise of suo motu revisional power of this Tribunal. Revision Applications are dismissed. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within three months. H.B.T./1926/Lb. S ????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision application dismissed.