1988 PLP 234 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus REHMATULLAH
| Citation | 1988 PLP 234 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus REHMATULLAH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 234 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 234 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 234 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus REHMATULLAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.
- Syed Ashiq Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Transfer‑‑Category of employee cannot be changed without his consent‑‑Bus conductor transferred as Daftri‑‑Transfer order, held, was not sustainable and order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition with direction for reposting petitioner as Conductor' was upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant. Syed Ashiq Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1987. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 25‑11‑1986 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. Facts of the case are that the respondent was a conductor appointed on 16‑7‑1985. On 15‑3‑1986 an order was passed in the words "Struck of Strength" and he was directed to report in District Manager's office for further orders. On 16‑3‑1986 he was ordered to work as a daftari. He challenged this order in his grievance petition.
3. It has been argued that in written statement objection was taken that the petition was time‑barred but the learned lower Court has not decided the point. The objection taken in the written statement was that the petition was time‑barred but the learned lower Court has held that grievance notice was within time inasmuch as upto March, 1986, the respondent was vide P.4 paid the salary of conductor. According to section 25‑A grievance petition is to be brought within 2 months and 15 days of the service of the grievance notice, where no reply of the grievance notice had been sent by the employer or within 2 months of the reply of the grievance notice. No copy of the grievance notice is on the record but in pars. No.7 of the grievance petition the respondent urged that he had served grievance notice on 2‑6‑1986. In written statement the para is not denied. It is written "the pars. is not denied". In urdu it reads (PARA NO. 7 SE INKAR NAH HAI) The grievance petition was presented on 18‑6‑1986 and thus was within two and half months of the service of the grievance notice.
4. So far as the merits of the case are concerned the order of transferring the respondent from the post of conductor to the post of Daftri was not sustainable and was rightly set aside by the learned labour Court. Post of conductor belongs to Traffic Cadre, whereas A Daftri works in an office and thus does not belong to Traffic Cadre. Category of an employee cannot be changed without his consent. The respondent, therefore, was rightly directed to be reposted as conductor.
5. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E. /309/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.