1995 PLP 384 (PLC)
Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, III‑PROVINCIAL BUILDINGS CIRCLE, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 384 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, III‑PROVINCIAL BUILDINGS CIRCLE, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 384 (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 384 (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 384 (PLC) (Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, III‑PROVINCIAL BUILDINGS CIRCLE, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalid Farooq for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th October, 19'87.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Reversion‑‑‑Ad interim stay‑‑‑Promotion under rules required to be made on recommendations of Selection Committee‑‑‑Promotion made without such recommendation‑‑‑Selection Committee subsequently not recommending promotion‑‑‑Reversion order challenged in grievance petition with prayer for ad interim stay‑‑‑Labour Court refusing to grant ad interim stay‑‑‑Interference in revision, refused by Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Held, as additional ground that as no irreparable loss could be suffered by workman because wages of lower and higher posts being known and defined, difference thereof could be calculated and paid in case of acceptance of grievance petition finally. 1981 SCMR 523 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Khalid Farooq for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th October, 19'
87. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 16‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the application for interim stay brought by the petitioner was dismissed is wrong and improper.
2. On the previous date request was made on behalf of the respondent for adjournment in order to engage a counsel but on 24‑10‑1987 the date which the revision was adjourned for hearing none appeared for the respondent, therefore, the revision was heard ex parte.
3. The facts are that the petitioner who was Works Supervisor was promoted as General Supervisor on 14‑4‑1986 vide Annexure `A' against an existing vacancy. He was vide order dated 23‑9‑1986 copy of which is Annexure `C' reverted to substantive post. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion in his grievance petition wherein he has applied for stopping the implementation of the order of reversion. The ground of reversion given in the order copy of which is Annexure `C' is the decision of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in reality no Selection Committee exists nor it examined the question of promotion and reversion of the petitioner. I have gone through the grievance petition of the petitioner but have not been able to find any plea wherein it may have been urged that either no Selection Committee exists or that the selection committee did not consider the case.. The learned lower Court has in the impugned order said that the name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 23 of the seniority list, therefore, the Selection Committee did not recommend his promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the Competent Authority had ordered the promotion of the petitioner, without any allegation of misconduct he could not be reverted. He has cited 1981 SCMR
523. An order of promotion passed by the competent Authority may not be cancelled or in any other manner done away with if that order is otherwise legal. The case from which the Supreme Court ruling referred to above arose it was not said that the order challenged in the petition was not in accordance with the law. But in the present case as mentioned above the petitioner was promoted without the recommendations of the Selection Committee and when the matter went to the Selection Committee it did not approve the same. So, the ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
4. The other thing for which the application for interim stay cannot be accepted is that by the rejection of the application for injunction no irreparable loss can be suffered by the petitioner. The wages of Works Supervisor and General Supervisor are known and defined and if ultimately the petitioner succeeds in his grievance petition the difference between the wages of the two posts can be very easily calculated and the loss suffered by the reversion of the petitioner determined.
5. As a result the revision is dismissed ex parte. A.E./465/Lb.P Revision dismissed.