1988 PLP 634 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAUF BUTT Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 634 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAUF BUTT Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 634 (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 1988 PLP 634 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1988 PLP 634 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAUF BUTT Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Maintainability‑‑Grievance petition, containing cause of grievance cannot be dismissed without evidence and hearing the case‑‑Petitioner making application to amend petition‑‑Labour Court while rejecting application for amendment dismissing main petition without evidence‑‑Order of Labour Court, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits. Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representation with the Appellant.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representation with the Appellant. Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th June, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 30‑4‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court "No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby while dismissing the application for amendment of the grievance petition, the main petition has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was awarded punishment of stopping of annual increments for one year and he challenged that order before the learned lower Court. Before he brought the petition he had received a notice from the respondent to explain why on the punishment of W.I.P. be not converted into punishment of removal from service. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that by the amendment the nature of the case will be changed. He also says that only an explanation has been called for but no charge‑sheet has been served. There appears to be no justification in the amendment because, even otherwise, the punishment cannot be enhanced without hearing the appellant. The nature of the case will be changed by the amendment. The order of the learned lower Court to the extent of disallowing amendment, therefore, does not appear to be incorrect.
3. However, the main petition has been wrongly dismissed. There was a cause of grievance to the appellant to go to the Labour Court, inasmuch as, punishment of W.I.P. for one year was awarded to the appellant which according to the appellant was uncalled for. Without inviting any evidence and hearing the case the petition could not be dismissed. 3‑A. As a result of what has been said above the appeal is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision to the extent of it dismissed the main case, the case is remanded for decision on merits. A.E./376/Lb.P Case remanded