1990 PLP 485 (PLC)
SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS Versus ABDUL WAHEED
| Citation | 1990 PLP 485 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS Versus ABDUL WAHEED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 485 (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 1990 PLP 485 (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: 1990 PLP 485 (PLC) (SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS Versus ABDUL WAHEED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36‑‑‑Evidence‑‑‑Oral statement of petitioner not controverted‑‑ Such statement could be believed when Court was satisfied.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36‑‑‑Evidence‑‑‑Oral statement of petitioner not controverted‑‑ Such statement could be believed when Court was satisfied. Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 29th June, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 12‑4‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted ex parte and the respondent was directed to be confirmed against the post of A.T.S.K., the post already occupied by him.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was a Compositor and due to some eye trouble the Doctor recommended light duty whereupon according to the case of the respondent he was posted as A.T.S.K. Muhammad Iqbal and Sh.Sohail were promoted as Assistant Section Holders. The respondent, therefore, after the service of grievance notice brought grievance petition claiming as the two persons mentioned above were junior to him, and were matriculate whereas he was F.A. and thus was wrongly ignored. His prayer was that he be confirmed on the post of A.T.S.K. On the service of grievance notice the respondent was reverted to the post of Compositor. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was never posted as A.T.S.K., therefore, he could not claim confirmation against that post, May it be so but since there was no material before the learned lower Court to the effect that the respondent had not been posted as A.T.S.K., the said Court had no other alternative but to believe the unrebutted statement of the respondent. I do not find any force in the argument that since no appointment order was produced before the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent should not have been accepted ex parte. The oral statement of the petitioner which had not been controverted can be believed if the Court is satisfied. The remedy for the appellant was to apply for setting aside the ex parte decision if notice of the case was not served or if there are other cogent reasons.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed ex parte. A.E./387/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.