1986 PLP 336 (PLC)
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus RAHIM DAD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 336 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus RAHIM DAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 336 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 336 (PLC)?
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 336 (PLC) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus RAHIM DAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Salim Khan for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Reduction in rank‑‑Junior Clerk of Urban Transport Corporation posted as Assistant Cashier‑‑Such postings made not by rotation but on basis of seniority and carrying special pay of Rs.30 p.m.‑‑Re‑posting as Junior Clerk, in circumstances, held, amounts to reduction in rank‑ Re‑posting made due to alleged misconduct with stigma‑‑Re‑posting without enquiry, in circumstances, held, rightly set‑aside by Labour Court with directions for reposting as Assistant Cashier with back benefits‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A 8 38(3).
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Salim Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1982. The respondent was employed as Junior Clerk on 1‑3‑1976 in the Lahore Omnibus Service, Saddar Depot, Lahore and or. 29‑11‑1976 he was posted as Assistant Cashier. The latter post carries a special pay of Rs.30 per mensem. He was charge‑sheeted on 26‑5‑1977 for the misappropriation of Rs.100 by depositing Rs.57.88 only, whereas he had received Rs.157.88 from a conductor for deposit. He had under the pressure of the Accounts Officer and the cashier deposited the amount of Rs.100 on the same day. He was charge‑sheeted and reverted to the post of Junior Clerk.
2. It has been argued that as the posts of Junior Clerk and the Assistant Cashier belong to the same category, it was not a case of reversion or demotion. No doubt, the two posts belong to the same national pay scale No. 5, but since the post of Assistant Cashier carries a special pay of Rs.30 per month, the reposting of the respondent as Junior Clerk amounts to reduction in rank. Since on account of the alleged misconduct, the respondent was reposted as Junior Clerk, he was stigmatised, making of enquiry was, therefore, necessary. If the policy of posting Junior Clerk as Assistant Cashier by rotation had been prevailing there could have been no grievance to the respondent. This is obvious that on the basis of seniority from Junior Clerks, posting is made an Assistant Cashier. So the respondent being senior could not have been reposted as Junior Clerk. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly set aside the order passed by the appellant and directed the reposting of the respondent as Assistant Cashier with back benefits. The appeal is without force and is dismissed. A.E Appeal dismissed.