1986 PLP 483 (PLC(CS))
FAZAL ELAHI and 19 others Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and 2 others
| Citation | 1986 PLP 483 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAZAL ELAHI and 19 others Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 483 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 483 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1986 PLP 483 (PLC(CS)) (FAZAL ELAHI and 19 others Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan A. Hamid for Appellants.
- Amjad Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Railway employees‑‑Claiming confirmation after service of about 20 years‑‑Posts not of permanent but of diminishing category‑‑Claim for confirmation, in circumstances, rejected but such workers allowed benefits of confirmed employees.
Judgment & Decree
Khan A. Hamid for Appellants. Amjad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1984. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 16‑11‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants for their confirmation.
2. The appellants are trouble shooters working for more than 20 years. On the basis of Exit. P. 8 they claimed to be confirmed alongwith the posts. This is true that direction was issued vide Exh. P. 8 to confirm the workers working for more than three years, but the case of the appellants is different. Vide Exh. P. 3 the post of trouble shooter was declared as 'diminishing category, meaning thereby that on the retirement or otherwise of the present incumbents, the vacancies shall not be filed in and instead the vacant posts will be abolished. If the posts are confirmed, Bxh. P. 3 will become redundant because the employees serving an the lower posts will claim promotion to the posts of trouble shooters, which is against the spirit of Exh. P.
3. When the post is not permanent and belongs to diminishing category, no question of the appellants being confirmed against the said posts arises. Exh. P. 8 also provides that where the persons cannot be, for some reasons, confirmed, they be given all the benefits of confirmed employees. Learned counsel for the appellants has himself said that rights of confirmed employees have been given to the appellants. Since the maximum benefits, which the appellants could get by virtue of Exh. P. 8, are being given to the appellants, they cannot claim more than that.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E. Appeal dismissed.