1988 PLP 240 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN
| Citation | 1988 PLP 240 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 240 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 240 (PLC)?
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: 1988 PLP 240 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against change of cadre‑ Condudtor of Road Transport Corporation posted as clerk and deprived of emoluments to the extent of commission‑‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly accepted by Labour Court and direction for petitioner tope re‑appointed as conductor upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
- Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 25‑11‑1986, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby accepting the grievance petition of the respondent, the respondent was directed to be reappointed as a conductor.
2. The facts are that the respondent was initially employed as a clerk. He was, thereafter, made a conductor. He was vide order dated 6‑1‑1986 posted as a clerk. Admittedly the post of clerk does not belong to the traffic cadre. Thus, by posting the respondent as clerk from the post of conductor, his category was changed without his consent. The respondent challenged the order for the reason that although the grade was the same yet by being posted as clerk, he lost his commission. According to him, he was earning Rs.1,000 per month as commission.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance notice was time‑barred, inasmuch as the order posting the respondent as clerk was passed on 6‑1‑1986 but the grievance notice was sent on 31‑5‑1986. The argument is without force. No doubt, the order whereby the respondent was posted as clerk is dated 6‑1‑1986 but, as stated by the respondent in his statement, he worked upto 15‑3‑1986 as conductor and on 16‑3‑1986 he was relieved from there. The cause of grievance, therefore, arose to the respondent from 16‑3‑1986 and thus the grievance notice sent on 31‑5‑1986 which, according to the postal receipt, reached the appellant on 2‑6‑1986 was well within time.
4. The other point argued is that since initially the respondent was recruited as a clerk, his recategorization from the post of the conductor to that of the clerk did not prejudice him. On the face of it the argument is without force. This is not the case of the appellant that the respondent was posted as a conductor temporarily on the understanding that he would not claim any right against the said post. He was permanently absorbed as a conductor. Since his categoey was changed by posting him as a clerk, he was justified in challenging the order dated 6‑1‑1986. Since the respondent felt contented at the time he was posted as conductor from the post of clerk, he did not A challenge the same but it does not mean that he was debarred from' challenging the order dated 6‑1‑1986 whereby he was posted as a clerk. The respondent lost his emoluments also, inasmuch as, as I stated by him, he used to earn commission while being a conductor.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A. E. /271/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.