1984 PLP 982 (PLC(CS))
WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS Versus Malik ABDUL GHAFFAR
| Citation | 1984 PLP 982 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS Versus Malik ABDUL GHAFFAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 982 (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 982 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 982 (PLC(CS)) (WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS Versus Malik ABDUL GHAFFAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Mohsin for Appellant.
- Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 22nd March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i) and S. O. 15 (5) read with Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 2 (b) and Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 2(n) Sched. II, cl. (xix)‑WAPDA employee‑Meter reader‑Making readings of energy consumed‑Excluded from definition of "civil servant " Neither a manager nor supervisor‑Making of entry of consumed energy in reading book a clerical work‑Covered by definition of workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Order suspending such official for indefinite period, held, void‑Re‑instatement awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
S. M. Mohsin for Appellant. Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing : 22nd March, 1982. The respondent who is a Meter Reader was suspended on 1st Novem ber, 1979 for an indefinite period for the reason that the reading of meter made by him was defective. He has been re‑instated for the reason that according to Order 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance he could be suspended for 28 days only. It was observed that since the statement of the respondent that he had served grievance notice had not been rebutted and he was not cross‑examined on the point, the service of grievance notice was proved. This notice was given before bringing the civil suit. The respondent was Meld to be a workman. The respondent is employed in distribution of electricity, since he makes readings of energy consumed by the customers. He, therefore, falls in clause (xix) of Schedule 11 of section 2(a) Workmen's Compensation Act and is excluded from the definition of civil servant. He is not a manager or a supervisor and thus is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of I. R. O. He reads from the meters the energy consumed and enters it in his reading book. Thus be does clerical work and is covered by the definition of workman according to section 2 (ii) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. According to Order 15 (5) a workman can be suspended for the purpose of inquiry for 4 days at a time for a total period of 28 days only but in the present case the respondent was suspended for an indefinite period. So the‑ order is void. Even according to WAPDA Rules an employee can be suspended for the purpose of inquiry only. No case of the appellant that any inquiry had been started. No evidence produced on the point was produced. The respondent therefore, has been rightly re‑instated. No force in they appeal which is dismissed A. E. Appeal dismissed.