1994 PLP 442 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus Messrs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI through Director‑General
| Citation | 1994 PLP 442 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus Messrs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI through Director‑General |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 442 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 442 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 442 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus Messrs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI through Director‑General). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ehsan Ellahi, Representative for Appellant.
- Muhammad Qasim Ali for Respondent.
- Date of hearing,: 1st February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Resolution‑‑‑Challenge to‑‑‑Governing Body of the Employer by its earlier resolution, upgraded certain categories of employees including Trailor Operators‑‑‑Posts of Trailor Operators which were to be upgraded from B‑9 to B‑11, due to typographical error in preparing list were shown to have been upgraded to B‑13‑‑‑Governing Body, on coming to know such mistake, by its subsequent resolution removed that, mistake‑‑‑Such order of correction was challenged by employee/Traitor Operator‑‑‑Governing Body having requisite power to correct mistake 'that had crept in the preparation of list, its order could not be challenged, when no malice or mala fides was remotely involved and when such order did not pertain to any individual, but to whole group of Trailor operators who had been upgraded.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing,: 1st February, 1994. This appeal, succinctly, stated, has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The Governing Body of the K.D.A. by Resolution No. 23, dated 12‑1‑1991 upgraded certain categories of their employees. One of them was the post of the Trailor Operators who were upgraded from B‑9 to B‑13 It transpired that there was some typographical error in the preparation of the list and therefore the Governing Body by another Resolution being No. 9, dated 25‑5‑1991 rectified the error. As a result thereof the post of Trailor Operator was upgraded from B‑9 to B‑
11. A corrigendum was issued to that effect. Thereafter, a Circular came issued by the Deputy Secretary, Administration dated 10‑7‑1991, which reads as under:‑ "In continuation of this Secretariat Office Memo. No.2‑2(5)/Vol XVIII/IRO/90/296, dated 25‑2‑1991 the undersigned is directed to say that Governing Body, K.D.A. vide its Resolution No. 9, dated 25‑5‑1991 has resolved that Trailor Operators who were inadvertently shown to have been upgraded to B‑13 from B‑9 vide Resolution No‑25, dated 12‑1‑1991 may be corrected and read to have been upgraded from B‑9 to B‑11." It is this order which came to be assailed before the Labour Court but without any success, culminating in this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Ehsan Ellahi, Representative for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Qasim Ali, Assistant Law Officer, KDA.
4. The Governing Body as to be found from the Karachi Development Authority, President's Order No. 5 of 1957, as amended from time to time, consist of a Chairman, a Director‑General and five other Members to be appointed by the Provincial Government, not less than two of them other than the Director‑General being whole time Members. The Commissioner Karachi is the ex‑officio Chairman of the Governing Body.
5. The Resolution No.23 was passed by the Governing Body and the alleged typographical error once noticed came to be undone by a subsequent Resolution.
6. Mr. Ehsan Ellahi, learned Representative for the appellant, could not say that the Governing Body did not have the requisite power to rectify the mistake that had crept ' in the preparation of the list or that subsequent Resolution was not passed by a competent authority,
7. It is not anybody's case that any malice or mala fide was even remotely involved. It did not pertain to any individual but to the whole group of Trailor Operators who had been upgraded. The impugned order, under the circumstances, calls for no interference.
8. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2291 /Lb. S Appeal dismissed