1995 PLP 374 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION through District Manager, P.R.T.C. (Intercity) Depot, Sargodha Versus FAZAL ABBAS SHAH
| Citation | 1995 PLP 374 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION through District Manager, P.R.T.C. (Intercity) Depot, Sargodha Versus FAZAL ABBAS SHAH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 374 (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 374 (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 374 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION through District Manager, P.R.T.C. (Intercity) Depot, Sargodha Versus FAZAL ABBAS SHAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.
- Syed Ashiq Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition against transfer‑‑‑Loss of commission due to transfer was ground to challenge transfer order‑‑‑Change of category without consent of workman was not valid‑‑‑Bus Conductor belonging to Traffic Cadre of Road Transport Corporation transferred as Oil Greaser a post not belonging to Traffic Cadre‑‑‑Labour Court, held, was justified in accepting grievance petition against such transfer order.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 25‑11‑1986 recorded by learned Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent was initially recruited as cleaner in 1978 and was made conductor in 1985. When he reported on duty after returning from leave on 21‑4‑1986 he was ordered to work as Oil Greaser. Since the respondent was earning commission as conductor, he therefore, feeling aggrieved challenged the order in his grievance petition. The order posting him as Oil Greaser was passed on 6‑1‑1986 but he was actually made to work as such on 21‑4‑1986. The learned Labour Court has rightly held that period of limitation for the service of grievance notice had started from 21‑4‑1986. Since up to 21‑4‑1986 the respondent had been working as conductor he had no cause to challenge the order dated 6‑1‑
986. Even this much is not clear if the said order had been served upon the respondent.
3. Loss of commission cannot be a ground to challenge the order but since the category of the respondent was changed he had rightly felt aggrieved. Category of employee cannot be changed without his consent: Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that post of Oil Greaser belongs to the Traffic Cadre. I have gone through the file but have failed to find any document which could have shown that the said post like the post of conductor belongs to Traffic Cadre. In these circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in accepting the grievance petition.
4. As a result the appeal is dismissed. A.E./310/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.