1983 PLP 295 (PLC)
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus IMDAD ALI
| Citation | 1983 PLP 295 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal. |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus IMDAD ALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 295 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 295 (PLC)?
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 295 (PLC) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus IMDAD ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 21st November 1982. .
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ ‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Promotion to higher rank ‑‑ Petitioner ignored and his junior promoted‑Petitioner not allowed to sit in selection though otherwise eligible‑Order of Labour Court that petitioner be deemed to have been promoted from date his junior was promoted, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal arises from the decision dated 17th of August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the appellant was directed to treat the respondent to have been. promoted w. e. f. 15‑1‑1980.and to deem him senior to Nawaz Ali Shah in the category of A. W. M. Back benefits were not allowed to the respondent. Nawaz Ali Shah, Foreman, who was junior to the respondent was promoted on 15‑1‑1980 and this gave a cause of grievance to the respondent to bring the grievance petition. During the pendency of the grievance petition, the respondent was promoted on 10th of July, 1980. Since the respondent has been promoted it means that he was fit for promotion. He was, therefore, wrongly ignored on 15‑1‑1980. The learned lower Court rightly directed that he be deemed to have been promoted from 15‑1‑1980 and be deemed senior to Nawaz Ali Shah. No doubt, according to Exh. P‑1 Nawaz Ali Shah was selected by the Selection Committee, but there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent was allowed to sit in the selection, and he was not selected. There is nothing on record to show also that for some reason, the respondent was not eligible to sit in the selection. If he had been removed from service and had not been in service at the time of selection, of course the respondent could not have claimed seniority over Nawaz Ali Shah. Since the respondent was ignored not for any fault o his, the direction given by the learned lower Court that he be treated to have been promoted from 15‑1‑1980 and be treated as senior to Nawaz Ali Shah is just and proper.
2. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.