1986 PLP 507 (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus ZAHEER‑UD‑DIN BABAR
| Citation | 1986 PLP 507 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus ZAHEER‑UD‑DIN BABAR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 507 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 507 (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 507 (PLC(CS)) (GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus ZAHEER‑UD‑DIN BABAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.O. 12(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Written order with explicit reasons‑‑Mandatory even in case of temporary workers.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.O. 12(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Written order with explicit reasons‑‑Mandatory even in case of temporary workers. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1985. The decision dated 30‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned hereby Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as Badli Conductor and he served from 14‑5‑1984 to 31‑10‑1984. He has been directed to be reinstated in service on the ground that no reason has been given in the order of termination of services. It has been argued that the respondent did not complete the period of 183 days service, therefore, had not become a permanent Badli and he could not ask for being reinstated. This is true that the respondent had not become permanent on the date on which his name was removed from the panel of Badli Conductors, but he has not been reinstated on this ground. The provisions of Standing Order 12(3) have been violated. This is noteworthy that in the said order a temporary worker has not been excluded. So even to remove al temporary worker an order in writing is to be recorded and explicit reasons of termination are to be given. Since no ground was given in the order of termination of services, the order has no value in the eyes of law and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. There is no scope to interfere with the order of the learned lower Court.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is thus dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.