1984 PLP (2) (PLC(CS))
WAPDA THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUJRANWALA Versus RIASAT ALI SHAH.
| Citation | 1984 PLP (2) (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi |
| Parties | WAPDA THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUJRANWALA Versus RIASAT ALI SHAH. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (2) (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (2) (PLC(CS))?
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: 1984 PLP (2) (PLC(CS)) (WAPDA THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUJRANWALA Versus RIASAT ALI SHAH.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian 1qbal Khalid for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 21st March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Workman‑Operation of order of demotion ‑Suspension‑Workman demoted by way of punishment without making proper enquiry‑Order of lower Court suspending such order, held, valid and needs no interference.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Workman‑Operation of order of demotion ‑Suspension‑Workman demoted by way of punishment without making proper enquiry‑Order of lower Court suspending such order, held, valid and needs no interference. Mian 1qbal Khalid for Petitioner. Date of hearing : 21st March, 1982. This revision arises from the order, dated 24th February. 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala whereby the operation of the order of demotion of the respondent was suspended till the decision of his grievance petition,
2. The respondent was demoted by way of punishment without making any proper enquiry. The order of demotion has been placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which shows that no enquiry was held.
3. The respondent was Lineman Grade I and be was demoted to Lineman Grade II. Since the order of demotion by way of punishment without making any enquiry, the order of the lower Court suspending the order does not suffer from any illegality, and call for interference in revision. I, therefore, do not find any force in the revision and dismiss it in limine. M. Y. M. Revision petition dismissed.