2011 PLC 214 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others
| Citation | 2011 PLC 214 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Aziz Kundi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLC 214 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLC 214 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Abdul Aziz Kundi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLC 214 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Wiqar Ahmad Seth for Appellant.
- Ijaz Anwar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 46, 47(3) & 48
Industrial and Commercial. Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(g) & S. O.1(b)
Claim for
Petitioner, while posted as Naib Qasid in the establishment since 1985, was directed to work as driver on an Ambulance since August 1993
Grievance of the petitioner was that persons much junior to him were regularized as vehicle drivers in scale-5, but he, despite having qualified "Trade test of drivers" and was senior to said persons had been ignored
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court through impugned order proceeded to dismiss grievance petition filed by the petitioner, holding that no secured and guaranteed rights of the petitioner had been violated, and he had no cause; and that question of discrimination did not arise at all
Petitioner who under clause (b) of Standing Order 1 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 had got status of permanent worker, for all practical purposes would be entitled to be treated as a regular employee of the establishment in his capacity as a driver of the Ambulance; and was entitled to all the consequential benefits
Though, the petitioner, felt aggrieved when on his supersession, others were regularized, but in fact the law held him entitled much earlier than that
While allowing appeal of the petitioner, his grievance petition under S.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was accepted and establishment was directed to treat him as a regular driver after having completed the requisite period as a permanent driver and allow him all consequential benefits from the said date.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.
Muhammad Riaz appellant, who was petitioner in his petition under section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, before Labour Court, Peshawar and aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19-10-2005, passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar, dismissing his grievance petition has questioned the same through the instant appeal.
2. Petitioner-appellant, on 6-9-2005, filed Grievance Petition under section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, against General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others, the respondents, stating therein that he was appointed as Naib Qasid on 24-10-1985, but since August, 1993 performing the duties of a driver of Ambulance in his own pay and scale and that through impugned orders bearing No.220-E/Staff/Car-2001 dated 2-7-2005 and No.941-E/1/PSC/P-1 dated 18-7-2005, passed respectively by General Manager Personnel and DPO Peshawar, whereby persons much junior to him were regularized as vehicle drivers in Scale-5 by ignoring the petitioner-appellant, who was senior to the said persons and had been performing his duties as such since August, 1993. The prayer made in the said petition by the petitioner appellant reads as under:
"That on acceptance of this grievance petition the secured and guaranteed rights of the petitioner be enforced to the effect that impugned regularization order be declared illegal, unlawful, void and ineffective and petitioner be regularized as driver ahead of his juniors and arrears of pay in pay scale since utilization be paid to him with such other relief as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. May also be granted."
3. Respondents on being summoned entered contest through their written statement, whereafter parties led their evidence and then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court through his impugned judgment/order dated 19-10-2005, proceeded to dismiss the Grievance Petition of the petitioner-appellant, holding that no secured and guaranteed rights of the petitioner-appellant have been violated and thus he has no cause and that question of discrimination does not arise at all. The instant appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
4. In his evidence, petitioner recorded his own statement as P. W.1 and produced order directing him to work as Ambulance Driver Exh;P.W.1/1, Exh.P.W.1/2 and Exh.P.W.1/3; Exh.P.W.1/4 is a letter by Divisional Medical Officer, Pakistan Railways, Peshawar, Exh.P.W.1/5 is the result of trade test of drivers and petitioner's name appear at S.No.10 of the said list. Exh. P. W.1/6 is the impugned order dated 12-7-2005, granting sanction for one time relaxation in educational qualification being under middle to the persons named therein. Exh.P.W.I/7 is the impugned order dated 18-7-2005, regularizing services of those other than petitioner-appellant. Exh.P.W.1/8 to Exh.P.W/1/10 are copies of grievance notices dated 8-8-2005, sent to all the respondents, while Exh.P.W.1/11 to Exh.P.W.1/13 are the postal receipts thereof. Exh.P.W.1/14 is a list containing particulars of vehicle drivers.
5. As against that, respondents produced Manzoor Ali, UDC as R.W.1, who besides his statement also tendered in evidence remaining absent for about two years the petitioner has approached this Bench of Commission that he is being retired by the respondents management by way of unfair labour practice.
5. Moreover the petitioner has levelled only bald and general allegations and no specific instance of any act of unfair labour practice has been quoted. He has also failed to specify his trade union activities due to which the respondents have annoyed with him to the extent that they have issued his retirement letter dated 20-9-2008. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondents have recorded wrong date of birth of the petitioner as an act of unfair labour practice.
6. It is worth to mention here that there is plethora of case law where our superior Courts have observed that retirement of an employee on attaining the age of superannuation does not come within the ambit of unfair labour practice. In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable as such the same stands dismissed along with stay application. H.B.T./2/NIRC Petition dismisse