1986 PLP 452 (PLC)
MAHMOOD ANWAR Versus WEST PAKISTAN COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY and another
| Citation | 1986 PLP 452 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MAHMOOD ANWAR Versus WEST PAKISTAN COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 452 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 452 (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: 1986 PLP 452 (PLC) (MAHMOOD ANWAR Versus WEST PAKISTAN COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hamid for Appellant.
- Muhammad Aslam, Legal Assistant for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985.'
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Transfer‑‑Neither rules of establishment nor conditions of service providing liability of transfer‑‑Transfer order, in circumstances, held, not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hamid for Appellant. Muhammad Aslam, Legal Assistant for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985.' The decision, dated 26‑3‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant challenging the transfer order, was dismissed.
2. The appellant was originally appointed as salesman at Lahore. He was posted as shop incharge and then again as salesman. He worked as shop incharge from 7‑12‑1981 to 16‑10‑1982 when he was transferred to Faisalabad as salesman. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the scale of shop incharge and salesman being the same the appellant was not reduced in rank by the impugned transfer order, therefore, there was no right guaranteed by any law. This is true but it is to be seen if the post was transferable or according to rules, or terms and conditions of service the appellant could be transferred out of Lahore or not. Exh. P. 8 is the copy of the rules and Exh. P. 1 is the letter of appointment of the appellant. In none of the said documents it is mentioned either that the post is transferable or that the appellant can be transferred elsewhere: Admittedly, the appellant joined service at Lahore and as there is no I provision of transfer either in the rules or in the conditions of service, the transfer order is not sustainable. Only in the cases where there is a provision of transfer, the employer has a prerogative to transfer his employees and the employees cannot challenge the transfer except on the ground of mala fide. The learned lower Court has in its judgment said that nothing was shown that the appellant could not be transferred. The rules and terms and conditions of service are the answer to the observations made by the learned lower Court. Since there is no provision of transfer in rules and the appointment letter, the transfer of the appellant out of Lahore has no basis. So far as posting of the appellant as salesman is concerned, of course, he has no right because he was never promoted to the post of shop incharge.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the transfer order, the respondent is directed to post the appellant as a salesman or as a shop incharge at Lahore. A.E. Appeal partly accepted.