1983 PLP 851 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN FERTILIZERS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL JAVED
| Citation | 1983 PLP 851 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN FERTILIZERS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL JAVED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 851 (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 1983 PLP 851 (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 851 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN FERTILIZERS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL JAVED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑Ad interim stay order‑Petitioner challeng ing redesignation to a lower post‑‑‑‑Labour Court granting status quo till next date of hearing‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in revision jurisdiction upholding order of Labour Court‑Held : Case was of change of category disallowing chances of promotion and Labour Court, in circumstances, does not appear to have exercised its discretion unjudiciously.
- Mian Muhammad Yasin for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing :.19th February, ‑1983. .
Headnotes / Summary
1982 P L C 445 and 1982 P L C 293 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
This revision emanates from the order dated 31‑7‑1982passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained till 9‑9‑1982, the date for which notice of stay application was issued to the petitioner.
2. The respondent was, according to him, designated as U. D. C. Thereafter, he was designated as assistant storekeeper and after some time was promoted as storekeeper, in officiating capacity against a permanent vacancy. He has been again redesignated as U. D. C. He has challenged this order in the learned lower court, which has issued impugned ad interim injunction till next date. The .date of 9‑9‑1982 has already passed and this is not known what has happened to the ad interim stay.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the injunction can be issued against a transfer order which has not been obeyed. He relies upon 1982 P L C 445 and 1982 P L C
293. Both the rulings are distinguishable. In the former authority of the Service Tribunal a junior was confirmed as special case on account of meritorious service record. The order had been duly implemented by the department. It was held that it could not be challenged simply for the reason that it had caused heart burning to some employees. In the latter ruling an employee was dismissed for misconduct. It was found that the procedure was duly followed and full opportunity of hearing was given and 'the charges were established. It was observed that the dismissal order could not be interfered with. This is apparent that on different facts both the rulings are not germane to the present case. This is wrong that the present one is a case of simple transfer. It is said to be a case of change of category disallowing chances of promotion. In these circumstances, the learned lower court does not appear to have exercised its discretion unjudiciously in favour of the respondent by directing the maintenance of status quo. do not find, any force in tie revision; which is dismissed in limine. Revision dismissed.