1984 PLP 1104 (PLC(CS))
SAIFULLAH Versus HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1104 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SAIFULLAH Versus HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1104 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1104 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1984 PLP 1104 (PLC(CS)) (SAIFULLAH Versus HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.
- Naeem Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Retrenchment-Right of employer' to abolish a post for good grounds cannot be denied-Management deciding to withdraw amenity of providing a cook to officers and to abolish post of cook Termination of service of cook, in circumstances, held, did not cause any actionable grievance even though he had fulfilled condi tions of becoming a permanent employee.
Judgment & Decree
Retrenchment-Right of employer' to abolish a post for good grounds cannot be denied-Management deciding to withdraw amenity of providing a cook to officers and to abolish post of cook Termination of service of cook, in circumstances, held, did not cause any actionable grievance even though he had fulfilled condi tions of becoming a permanent employee. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Naeem Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983. The appeal titled above emanates from the decision dated 30th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was employed as a cook for cooking the meals of the officers. On the change of the management the post of cook was abolished withdrawing the facility of providing a cook to the officers the services of the appellant were terminated. The appellant may have become a permanent employee fulfilling .the conditions of Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but the right of the employer to abolish a post for good grounds cannot be denied. Provision of a cook was only an amenity allowed to the officers and this could be withdrawn at any time and thus was justifiably withdrawn. Since the post of a cook ceased to exist, the termination of the appellant did not cause any actionable grievance to him. He was thus rightly terminated and his grievance peti tion dismissed.
3. As a result of what has been said above, there is no force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.