1986 PLP 501 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD YASEEN
| Citation | 1986 PLP 501 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD YASEEN |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 501 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 501 (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: 1986 PLP 501 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD YASEEN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yousuf for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 14th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Permanent worker‑‑Railway employee refused status of permanency on grounds to have served against T.L.A.‑‑Service more than 20 years without break and sanctioned after every six months‑‑No evidence that appointment was for any particular project‑‑Labour Court's order accepting grievance petition for being confirmed, in circumstances, held, unexceptionable‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A 38(3).
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Yousuf for Appellant. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1985. The decision dated 28‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for being confirmed was accepted.
2. The respondent was appointed on 25‑6‑1965 and continued serving the appellant upto the date he made the grievance petition. The case of the appellant is that he served against T.L.A. The learned lower Court was misled by Exh.R‑
1. It does not show that there was any break. Rather it conversely displays that service was continuous. In the column of break, wrongly breaks of 14 days are mentioned. Every time right from the following days he was shown on duty. In Exh. R‑1 certain sanction orders are mentioned but no copy of any order of sanction is on the record. Since in Exh.R‑1 wrongly breaks have been shown, the description of sanction too is not believable. Again if the respondent remained posted on the same post, getting of sanction after every six months had no adverse effect since the service is without any break. This is not the case of the appellant, nor is there any evidence on the record that the respondent was appointed for any particular projects. Of course if for different projects the respondent had been appointed, he could not have claimed permanency. The learners lower Court has rightly held that one cannot remain on T.L.A. for 20 long years without breaks. The learned lower Courts order is, therefore, unexceptional.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. A.E. Appeal dismissed.