1986 PLP 1110 (PLC(CS))
MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1110 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1110 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1110 (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 1110 (PLC(CS)) (MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farooq Ahmad for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Transfer‑‑Workman in Government Service‑‑Policy instructions of Government providing that low paid employees should not be transferred to other stations‑‑Transfer order from one station to another violative of Government instructions, held, was rightly set aside by Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Transfer‑‑Workman in Government Service‑‑Policy instructions of Government providing that low paid employees should not be transferred to other stations‑‑Transfer order from one station to another violative of Government instructions, held, was rightly set aside by Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3). Farooq Ahmad for Appellant. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986. The decision dated 29‑1‑1986, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9 Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent was transferred from Pakpattan to Vehari and he on the basis of Notification SOR‑II (S&GAD)/8‑178/72, dated 20‑1‑1973 challenged the order of his transfer on the ground that he being a low paid employee could not be transferred. The notification supports the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is the discretion of the employer to transfer the employees. In the presence of the notification the employer had no authority to transfer the respondent in violation of the said notification. If the respondent had been transferred not out of his station but within the precincts of the same city, of course, the order would not have been challenge-able. Now‑a‑days to get a house on hire is a great problem everywhere. Since the respondent was transferred out of his station, he has to make arrangements for his residence at his new place of posting and his pay being Rs.800 only, he is not likely to get a house even on a rent equal to the half of his pay. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly set aside the order of transfer.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.