1988 PLP 271 (PLC)
FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
| Citation | 1988 PLP 271 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 271 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 271 (PLC)?
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: 1988 PLP 271 (PLC) (FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Sikandar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Demotion from higher pay scale post‑‑Non‑mentioning of terms and conditions of service in appointment order, held, was no ground for demotion‑‑Removal from service or demotion could not lie made except as punishment for misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 12‑11‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4 Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑posting as Supervisor has been accepted.
2. The facts are that the respondent was initially appointed on ad hoc basis as Supervisor in scale No.4. Vide order copy of which is Exh.P.l, dated 29‑4‑1985, he was regularised as Supervisor. Later on, on the recommendation of the selection board before which the respondent had appeared, he was given appointment letter as Sewerman in Grade‑I. Copy of that order is Exh.P.2. The respondent challenged that order in his grievance petition.
3. The stand of the appellant throughout has been that since the respondent appeared before the selection board in compliance of the order of appellant and as the selection board recommended him fit for the post of Sewerman, the respondent could not challenge the order of his appointment as such. This is an admitted fact that the respondent was regularised as Supervisor in Grade‑
4. The simple fact that on the asking of the appellant the respondent had appeared before the‑selection board was not sufficient to demote him. A person [A whose services have been regularised against a certain post, he cannot be demoted without any fault. This is not the case of the appellant that the respondent committed any misconduct and, therefore, as punishment he was appointed as Sewerman. The order of regularisation as Supervisor is not being disowned by the appellant. The said order, therefore, was quite valid and the appellant is bound by it. This ground is also no reason for demotion that when initially the respondent was taken in service as a Supervisor no terms and conditions of services were settled and no appointment order was delivered to him. If at all there was any lacuna, the same vanished when the services of the respondent as Supervisor were regularised. Even otherwise, mentioning of terms and conditions of service which is the duty of the employer is not necessary and this cannot be ground for either removal from service or demotion to a lower post. The learned lower Court has rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and there is absolutely no scope to interfere with the same.
4. As a result the appeal is dismissed in limine. A. E. /293/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.