1983 PLP 366 (PLC)
TAIMUR AHMAD KHAN Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1983 PLP 366 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TAIMUR AHMAD KHAN Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 366 (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 1983 PLP 366 (PLC)?
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: 1983 PLP 366 (PLC) (TAIMUR AHMAD KHAN Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 5th December, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑Grievance petition‑Temporary injunction, pending decision‑Petitioner while on leave reverted to lower post ‑Challenging reversion order and praying for temporary injunction- Petitioner, held, on resumption of duty after expiry of leave had to resume on reverted post‑Reversion order already implemented hence prayer for temporary injunction, held, rightly refused by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
In this revision the order dated 4th‑ November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, has been challenged whereby the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction was dismissed. The petitioner was ticket examiner in Scale No. 9 and was reverted as time checker in Scale No. 5 pursuant to abolition of 80% posts of ticket examiners. The petitioner has challenged the order of his reversion to an application given .under section 25‑A and in the said petition moved appli cation for injunction. The petitioner was on the date of reversion and thereafter on long leave. Since he was not on duty as ticket examiner he had to report for duty on the post to which he had been reverted and not on the post of ticket examiner. The order of reversion, therefore, stands] implemented and no question of staying the operation of the order of revision arises. If the petitioner had been on duty as ticket examiner he could have asked for stopping the implementation of the order of reversion. But in the present circumstances he cannot achieve the object of working as ticket examiner till the decision of his grievance petition, unless a direction is issued to respondent to report the petitioner as ticket examiner he cannot function as such. But such direction can be issued only if he ultimately succeeds in his grievance petition. In these circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing the petition for temporary injunction. The ;revision is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed,