1989 PLP 267 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD SHAM
| Citation | 1989 PLP 267 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD SHAM |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 267 (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 267 (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 267 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD SHAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohammad Saleem Khan for Appellant.
- Asmat Kamal for Respondent. .
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Not a right but when one is promoted he gets a vested right which can be refused only by good reasons‑‑Employee of Road Transport Corporation promoted as Ticket Examiner‑‑‑ Reversion subsequently on grounds that promotion was made contrary to ban imposed by Government‑‑ Reversion order challenged in grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑Ban admittedly not followed in letter and spirit and action was being taken contrary to the same, under orders of Minister‑‑Ban having lost its legal force Labour Court, held, was justified in setting aside impugned reversion order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Not a right but when one is promoted he gets a vested right which can be refused only by good reasons‑‑Employee of Road Transport Corporation promoted as Ticket Examiner‑‑‑ Reversion subsequently on grounds that promotion was made contrary to ban imposed by Government‑‑ Reversion order challenged in grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑Ban admittedly not followed in letter and spirit and action was being taken contrary to the same, under orders of Minister‑‑Ban having lost its legal force Labour Court, held, was justified in setting aside impugned reversion order. Mohammad Saleem Khan for Appellant. Asmat Kamal for Respondent. . Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1987. This is an appeal arising from the decision dated 10‑6‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent has been accepted setting aside the order of reversion.
2. The respondent was promoted as Ticket Examiner on 17‑2‑1986 and vide order dated 28‑4‑1986 he was reverted to his substantive post on the ground that the order of promotion was bad in law, inasmuch as the ban imposed by the Government on promotions was effective. The imposition of ban is an admitted fact. R.W.‑1 in cross‑examination stated that although the letter Exh.R‑1 containing the ban had not been withdrawn, yet the action against the letter and the spirit of the said letter was being taken under the orders of the Minister and the Government in individual cases. By this admission made by R.W.‑1 it is clear that the ban is being observed in some cases and ignored in others. This is objectionable and shows that the ban imposing authority is no more particular about the ban. The simple reason that the respondent was promoted against the ban without the order of the Minister or the Government cannot‑be a ground for the withdrawal of the order of promotion or for reverting the respondent to his original post. The promotion no doubt is not a right but when one has been promoted, he gets a vested right which can be refused by good reasons. If the ban had been acted upon in every case, of course the order of reversion may have been justified since it was recorded before the period of probation had expired, A but since as deposed by R.W.‑1, action was being taken against the letters and spirit of the ban under the orders of the Minister or the Government, it is clear that the ban has lost its legal force. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in setting aside the order of reversion of the respondent.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./403/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.