1989 PLP 52 (PLC)
ALLAH WASAYA NASIM and 9 others Versus DIRECTOR OPERATION, P.R.T.C. and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP 52 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ALLAH WASAYA NASIM and 9 others Versus DIRECTOR OPERATION, P.R.T.C. and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 52 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 52 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1989 PLP 52 (PLC) (ALLAH WASAYA NASIM and 9 others Versus DIRECTOR OPERATION, P.R.T.C. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Anees for Petitioners.
- S.M. Abbas for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑ Ad interim injunction‑‑Prima facie case‑‑Stopping employee from discharging particular duty does not amount to termination of service and thus creates no infringement of any right guaranteed by law‑‑Checker of Road Transport Corporation stopped from discharging checking duties and made to work in office‑‑Wages of Checker continued to be paid‑‑Plea that fixed TA. and DA. given to Checkers if they perform checking duties was not paid‑‑TA/DA., held, cannot be characterised as wages because same was paid to defray expenses of travelling‑‑No right guaranteed by law, settlement or award, held, infringed‑ Petitions had no prima facie case‑‑Orders of Labour Court dismissing application for ad interim injunction having been rightly decided, left no scope of interference in revision by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑ Ad interim injunction‑‑Prima facie case‑‑Stopping employee from discharging particular duty does not amount to termination of service and thus creates no infringement of any right guaranteed by law‑‑Checker of Road Transport Corporation stopped from discharging checking duties and made to work in office‑‑Wages of Checker continued to be paid‑‑Plea that fixed TA. and DA. given to Checkers if they perform checking duties was not paid‑‑TA/DA., held, cannot be characterised as wages because same was paid to defray expenses of travelling‑‑No right guaranteed by law, settlement or award, held, infringed‑ Petitions had no prima facie case‑‑Orders of Labour Court dismissing application for ad interim injunction having been rightly decided, left no scope of interference in revision by Appellate Tribunal. Maqbool Anees for Petitioners. S.M. Abbas for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th February, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 6‑1‑1987 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the application for ad interim injunction was dismissed is wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The petitioners are Checkers. They have been stopped from discharging the duties of checking and have been made to work in the office. They have challenged this order on the ground of mala fide in their grievance petition brought under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 and made application for ad‑interim injunction to the effect that the respondent be directed to allow them to discharge their duties as Checkers. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show that they have a prima facie there appears to be infringement of no right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award. Order 12, clause (3) relates to termination of service but the petitioners have not been removed from service. It has not been shown that there is any settlement or ‑ award to the effect that workers cannot be stopped from discharging their duties. Since the petitioners are still Checkers and wages as much are being paid to them, they cannot be said to be aggrieved persons. It has been argued that fixed TA. DA. is given to the Checkers if they perform the duties of checking which they are losing. TA./DA. cannot be characterised as wages. They are paid TA./DA. to defray the expenses of travelling. Since no right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award appears to have been infringed the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the petitioners have no prima facie case. There is no scope to interfere with the impugned order.
3. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed. A.E./303/Lb.P. Revision dismissed