1984 PLP 1418 (PLC(CS))
IQBAL BUTT Versus THE MANAGER FINANCE (POWER), WAPDA,
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1418 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | IQBAL BUTT Versus THE MANAGER FINANCE (POWER), WAPDA, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1418 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1418 (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: 1984 PLP 1418 (PLC(CS)) (IQBAL BUTT Versus THE MANAGER FINANCE (POWER), WAPDA,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Officiating worker‑Not possessing required qualifica tions‑Claiming regular promotion/confirmation with relaxation of Rules of qualification on analogy of other cases‑Held: Employer to consider whether qualifications be relaxed or not and such' powers cannot be exercised by Courts.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. LHR‑784 of 1981, decided on 24th March, 1982. ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Officiating worker‑Not possessing required qualifica tions‑Claiming regular promotion/confirmation with relaxation of Rules of qualification on analogy of other cases‑Held: Employer to consider whether qualifications be relaxed or not and such' powers cannot be exercised by Courts. Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellant. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 25th October, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants was Accounts Clerk and was made to offciate as Accounts Assistant on the condition of pay ment of 12 per cent of his pay as allowance for working on the higher post. This order was passed on 20th June, 1963. He continued working in the same manner upto the date he retired. He brought a suit and was re‑instated. He claims to be confirmed and regularly promoted as Accounts Assistant with effect from 20th June, 1963. His argument is that the other persons have been confirmed. No doubt, certain Assistant Accountants who were offciating as such were regularised in relaxation of rules of qualification, but unless the rule had been relaxed in favour of the appellant, he could not claim confirmation. It is the function of the employer to consider whether in the particular case the rule of qualifica tion be relaxed or not and such powers cannot be exercised by Courts. The appellant admitted in his statement that for being regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant, qualifying examination is to be passed which he has not passed. If he had qualified and there had been a vacancy and yet he had not been confirmed, of course he could knock the door of the Labour Court. The fact that be is getting only 12 per cent of the pay of substantive post clearly shows and even otherwise this is an admitted fact that he is working only in an offciating capacity and thus as a matter of course, he cannot claim confirmation. In these circumstances, the appeal is without force and is dismissed in limine. M. I. Appeal dismissed.