1986 PLP 651 (PLC(CS))
RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR
| Citation | 1986 PLP 651 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor |
| Parties | RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 651 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 651 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 651 (PLC(CS)) (RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Intisar Hussain for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑-‑Pay, of higher post, cannot be claimed unless competent authority orders employee to discharge duties of higher post.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. LHR‑63 of 1985, decided on 3rd February, 1986. ‑-‑Pay, of higher post, cannot be claimed unless competent authority orders employee to discharge duties of higher post. S. Intisar Hussain for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1985. The decision, dated 18‑12‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was partly accepted and he was directed to be treated as Cabinman from the date of his recruitment in service fixing his pay and salary accordingly. The respondent was awarded back benefits for three years immediately from the date of the lodging of the grievance petition.
2. The respondent was recruited as Pointsman on 15‑i1‑1968. His case is that although he was appointed as Pointsman, yet right from the date of his appointment he was made to work as Cabinman. He was promoted as Shunting Porter on 16‑6‑1976 but according to him; he continued to work as Cabinman. Admittedly, there is no written order to the effect that the respondent may function as Cabinman. The respondent did not disclose under whose verbal orders he had been working as Cabinman. The respondent did not examine any witness in support of his solitary statement. His statement stood controverted by the evidence of P.W. 1 who stated that the respondent never worked as Cabinman before he was promoted as such on 29‑10‑1977. He gave evidence from the record and said that he never saw the respondent working. Unless some competent authority orders an employee to discharge the duties of a higher post, he cannot claim wages of the said post. He takes risk to work on a higher post by the verbal order of an incompetent officer. Since the respondent did not show under whose verbal orders he had been working as Cabinman, he was not entitled to the pay of the said post. There is no evidence that his working as Cabinman was ever ratified by the competent authority. This aspect of the case that it was not proved that under the orders of some competent authority the respondent had been working as Cabinman, was not considered by the learned lower Court. By the order of the learned lower Court, the regularly appointed Cabinmen may have become junior to the respondent who may be working without any authority even if ‑his statement is believed. So the impugned decision is not sustainable.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. A. E. Appeal accepted.