1989 PLP 349 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 3 others Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KHAIRWALA DRAINAGE DIVISION, FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1989 PLP 349 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 3 others Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KHAIRWALA DRAINAGE DIVISION, FAISALABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 349 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 349 (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 349 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 3 others Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KHAIRWALA DRAINAGE DIVISION, FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sakina Chowdhry for Appellants.
- Muhammad Azam Bhaur for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 1(4)(c)‑‑Public Works Department Code, Chap. I sub‑para. (7)‑‑Work charged employee in Punjab Government Irrigation Department‑‑Termination of service, on ten days' notice‑‑Such termination, held, was quite legal‑‑Employee of Government department governed by Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, held, was not within ambit of the Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 1(4)(c)‑‑Public Works Department Code, Chap. I sub‑para. (7)‑‑Work charged employee in Punjab Government Irrigation Department‑‑Termination of service, on ten days' notice‑‑Such termination, held, was quite legal‑‑Employee of Government department governed by Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, held, was not within ambit of the Ordinance. Sakina Chowdhry for Appellants. Muhammad Azam Bhaur for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th September, 1987. The four appeals captioned above challenge the decision dated 7‑5‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the four appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Muhammad Bashir and Ghulam Mohammad, appellants, were baildars and the remaining two appellants were; mates. The; were employed on world charged basis. The services of about seventeen employees were regularised on ad hoc basis vide order dated 14‑7‑1980 but the services of the appellants were terminated.. Ghulam Mohammad, appellant was not absorbed in regular service on the ground that he was over‑age being of the age of 49 years. Muhammad Bashir was not absorbed for the same reason. Ills age was 40 years at the time question of his absorption as permanent employee arose. The remaining two appellants were nut absorbed on the ground that they did not hold the minimum qualification of being middle pass. No rule has been shown that for the post o1 mate or baildar minimum qualification is middle. But, according to P.W.D. Cods Chapter I sub‑paragraph (7), a work charged employee can be terminated on ten days' notice. This is not the case of the appellants that without the service of tell days' notice their services were terminated since the appellants were employed in a department of the Government, they are Government servants and sine there arc Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, both the conditions given in Standing Order 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 stand satisfied and the said Ordinance is not applicable. The appellants, therefore, were rightly dealt with under the Rules of the respondent for termination of their services on ten days' notice. The orders of termination, therefore, were quite legal and the appellants have no case. Their petitions were thus rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court.
3. As a result, all the four appeals fail and are consequently dismissed. A.E./423/Lb/P. Appeals dismissed