1989PLC378 (PLP)
NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1989PLC378 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989PLC378 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989PLC378 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1989PLC378 (PLP) (NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Awan for Appellant.
- Muhammad Fakharuddin Chughtai for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
- 2. The facts are that the appellant, who was a works mistry, was promoted the post of A.I.O.W.on 15‑12‑1980. The post was admittedly work charged. The appellant was reverted on 18‑10‑1980 and in his place Shahzada Shah Nawaz, who is holding the same designation, was posted. Shahzada Shah Nawaz was a directly pointed as sub‑engineer/A.I.O.W. whereas the appellant was a promote. Shahzada Shah Nawaz was directly appointed as sub‑engineer/A.I.O.W. after the appellant was promoted on the said post. The Railway is maintaining a separate majority list of direct appointees and promotes. If the seniority had been joint, Shahzada Shah Nawaz should have been junior to the appellant, inasmuch as he is, as mentioned above, directly appointed after the appellant was promoted. pit the appellant was reverted on the plea that the work charged post was abolished. This does not appear to be correct. If the post had been abolished,' n no one would have been transferred to the said post, whereas this is common ground between the parties that on reversion of the appellant, Shahzada Shah Nawaz was transferred to the said post. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the post of A.I.O.W. held by the appellant was to last up to 10‑1986, whereas he was reverted on 18‑10‑1986, therefore, he was not prejudiced. On the face of it the argument has no force. The appellant could be reverted only on 31‑10‑1986 if on the said date the work charged post held by him to actually abolished or discontinued. However, there is no cavil about the fact it on account of the stay order issued by the learned lower Court the appellant continued workings as A.I.O.W. up to the decision of the case. Although eh could rain as A.I.O.W. till 31‑10‑1986 he continued up to the last and getting wages the said post and thus he has not suffer any monetary loss. Learned counsel for respondent has also argued that on 6‑11‑1986 the appellant was against promoted against another work charge post of A.I.O.W. May it be so, but since reversion dated 18‑10‑1986 was illegal, he rightly challenged the same.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Reversion‑‑Appellant worker, a work‑mistry, promoted to post of A.I.O.W. which was work‑charged‑‑Later on appellant was reverted anal in his place a direct appointee, who was holding same designation, was appointed by transfer‑‑Railway was maintaining a separate seniority list of direct appointees, and promotees‑‑Respondent contended that appellant was reverted because work‑charged post to which he was promoted was to be abolished by 31‑10‑1986‑ Since another person was posted in place of worker, reversion of appellant before 31‑10‑1986, held, was illegal‑‑Appellant on issue of order of his reversion obtained a stay order and has worked till last and received his wages of said post had not suffered any monetary loss‑‑Such worker was again promoted against another post of A.I.O.W.‑‑Appellant therefore was deemed to have remained regularly employed a A.I.O.W. up to 31‑10‑1986.‑‑Order of reversion was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Anwar Awan for Appellant. Muhammad Fakharuddin Chughtai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 14‑5‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the grievance petition brought by the appellant under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the appellant, who was a works mistry, was promoted the post of A.I.O.W.on 15‑12‑1980. The post was admittedly work charged. The appellant was reverted on 18‑10‑1980 and in his place Shahzada Shah Nawaz, who is holding the same designation, was posted. Shahzada Shah Nawaz was a directly pointed as sub‑engineer/A.I.O.W. whereas the appellant was a promote. Shahzada Shah Nawaz was directly appointed as sub‑engineer/A.I.O.W. after the appellant was promoted on the said post. The Railway is maintaining a separate majority list of direct appointees and promotes. If the seniority had been joint, Shahzada Shah Nawaz should have been junior to the appellant, inasmuch as he is, as mentioned above, directly appointed after the appellant was promoted. pit the appellant was reverted on the plea that the work charged post was abolished. This does not appear to be correct. If the post had been abolished,' n no one would have been transferred to the said post, whereas this is common ground between the parties that on reversion of the appellant, Shahzada Shah Nawaz was transferred to the said post. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the post of A.I.O.W. held by the appellant was to last up to 10‑1986, whereas he was reverted on 18‑10‑1986, therefore, he was not prejudiced. On the face of it the argument has no force. The appellant could be reverted only on 31‑10‑1986 if on the said date the work charged post held by him to actually abolished or discontinued. However, there is no cavil about the fact it on account of the stay order issued by the learned lower Court the appellant continued workings as A.I.O.W. up to the decision of the case. Although eh could rain as A.I.O.W. till 31‑10‑1986 he continued up to the last and getting wages the said post and thus he has not suffer any monetary loss. Learned counsel for respondent has also argued that on 6‑11‑1986 the appellant was against promoted against another work charge post of A.I.O.W. May it be so, but since reversion dated 18‑10‑1986 was illegal, he rightly challenged the same.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and it is observed that he appellant could not be reverted before 31‑10‑1986 and thus he will be deemed to have remained regularly A.I.O.W. up to 31‑19‑1986 stand the impugned order is Set ale accordingly.. M.Y.H. 576/Lb.P Appeal accepted.