1986 PLP 700 (PLC(CS))
SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
| Citation | 1986 PLP 700 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 700 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 700 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 700 (PLC(CS)) (SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Hamid Awan for Appellant.
- Fazal‑e‑Miran for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Transfer‑‑Disobedience of reasonable transfer order, would amount to misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
M.A. Hamid Awan for Appellant. Fazal‑e‑Miran for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1986. The decision, dated 21‑5‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was removed from service was that he was transferred to finished goods store but he refused to obey the orders. He was charge‑sheeted and an inquiry was admittedly held against him. The learned lower Court has observed that the inquiry was not made properly. The plea of the appellant was that the transfer had reduced him in rank and that the goods in the store were deficit. Service of transfer order and the refusal to obey were to be proved in the inquiry. This is the case of the appellant himself that he had refused to take the charge of the post of Incharge Finished Goods Store as by the transfer he was reduced in rank and that the goods were in deficit. So, the appellant had to prove that his objections were justified and only to give him opportunity to prove them, inquiry was to be held. Since inquiry was held, so he was afforded opportunity. He wrongly said that he was reduced in rank. Before the learned lower Court he admitted that he was not posted by the transfer order in a lower grade scale, rather the scale/grade remained the same i.e. No.9. So far as his plea that the goods in the store were in deficit, it is not reasonable. In the charge report he could have mentioned the quantity and quality of the goods and thus would have escaped the responsibility. The transfer was a reasonable order and its disobedience constituted misconduct. So, the very order of re‑instatement recorded by the learned lower Court is wrong and thus no question of allowing back benefits arises.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A. E Appeal dismissed