1988 PLP 415 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, P.R.T.C., GARDEN TOWN (I.C.) DEPOT and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 415 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Mohammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, P.R.T.C., GARDEN TOWN (I.C.) DEPOT and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 415 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 415 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Mohammad 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 415 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, P.R.T.C., GARDEN TOWN (I.C.) DEPOT and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hassan Ihsan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑Al‑‑Transfer‑‑Ad interim stay order‑ Prima facie case‑‑Petitioner's prima facie case is to be seen whether legal formalities have been observed or not‑‑Service of grievance notice disputed Labour Court passing ad‑interim stay order without recording anything about service of grievance notice‑‑Order of Labour Court, set' aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal with direction to Labour Court to re‑decide matter after expressing its prima facie opinion on point of service of grievance petition. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑.Ss.2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑"Workman"‑‑Chowkidar, held, was covered by definition of workman and could invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court if aggrieved by Transfer Order.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑.Ss.2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑"Workman"‑‑Chowkidar, held, was covered by definition of workman and could invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court if aggrieved by Transfer Order. Muhammad Hassan Ihsan for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1987. The order dated 23‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore, is reported to. be wrong and improper.
2. The facts are that the petitioner was serving as a Chowkidar at Lahore and. was transferred on 16‑2‑1987 to Sialkot. He challenged the said order in his grievance petition and applied for ad‑interim stay. Stay was granted in the pendency of the stay application and vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed. In the grievance petition it is not mentioned how the grievance notice was served. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that no copy of the grievance notice and no postal or A.D. receipt are on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refute this argument. While deciding whether the person asking for the stay order has a prima facie case it is to be seen whether legal formalities have been observed or not. But' the learned lower " court has not said anything with regard to the service of grievance notice. Even in reality there is no proof of service of grievance notice, it would be difficult to say that the petitioner has a primp facie case.
3. So far as the question of 'workman' is concerned, a Chowkidar prima facie is covered by the definition of 'workman' given in section 2(xxviii) 'of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thus can come to a Labour Court.
4. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the learned lower court is directed to re‑decide the grievance petition expressing its prima facie opinion on the point of service or non‑service of the grievance notice. A. E. /480/Lb.P Revision accepted.