1995 PLP 348 (PLC)
FINANCE ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus FEROZE UD‑DIN
| Citation | 1995 PLP 348 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FINANCE ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus FEROZE UD‑DIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 348 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 348 (PLC)?
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: 1995 PLP 348 (PLC) (FINANCE ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus FEROZE UD‑DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saifullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑‑Workman aggrieved due to removal of his name from seniority list being considered for promotion‑‑‑Labour Court passing stay order restraining employer from reverting petitioner workman‑‑‑Vacation of stay order sought on grounds that name of petitioner workman was included in seniority list‑‑‑Seniority position not assigned according to claim of petitioner‑‑‑Vacation of stay order, held, was rightly refused by Labour Court‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal refusing to interfere in revision.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑‑Workman aggrieved due to removal of his name from seniority list being considered for promotion‑‑‑Labour Court passing stay order restraining employer from reverting petitioner workman‑‑‑Vacation of stay order sought on grounds that name of petitioner workman was included in seniority list‑‑‑Seniority position not assigned according to claim of petitioner‑‑‑Vacation of stay order, held, was rightly refused by Labour Court‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal refusing to interfere in revision. Saifullah Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1987. The order dated 12‑9‑1987 whereby ad interim injunction was issued by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan against the petitioner is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts are that 33% quota is fixed for promotion to the post of ISA, Accountant, DPM and ICGs, on the basis of seniority. The name of the respondent was omitted from the seniority list he, therefore, brought an application under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for direction that his name be entered in the seniority list at Serial No.2, so that he could be promoted in 33% quota. He applied for ad interim stay for restraining the petitioner from reverting him and. transferring him from the present post. The learned lower Court issued a stay order restraining the petitioner from (Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor reverting the respondent. The petitioner moved an application for the vacation of the said stay order and by the impugned order the said application has been disallowed by the learned lower Court. The ground on which the vacation of the stay order has been claimed is that the name of the respondent has been included in the seniority list. The said seniority list as observed by the learned lower Court has been prepared in the pendency of the grievance petition brought by the respondent and is not according to his claim. As mentioned in the facts of the case the respondent claimed that his name was to be mentioned in the seniority list at Serial No.2 but in the revised seniority list the respondent has not been given the said place. It is, therefore got to be decided by the learned lower Court if the seniority list has been correctly prepared. Till it is done it was necessary that the stay order already issued should continue. The learned lower Court has thus rightly rejected the application of the petition for vacation of stay.
3. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./461/Lb.P Revision dismissed.