1984 PLP 959 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 959 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 959 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 959 (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 959 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 2nd July, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 12 (3)‑Termination of service‑Written order giving explicit reasons‑Essential‑Requirement applicable for every kind of worker‑Badli worker removed verbally on plea that there was no vacancy‑Re‑instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances. upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 12 (3)‑Termination of service‑Written order giving explicit reasons‑Essential‑Requirement applicable for every kind of worker‑Badli worker removed verbally on plea that there was no vacancy‑Re‑instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances. upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3). Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Date of hearing : 2nd July, 1983. In this appeal the decision dated 4th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be taken back in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was recruited as conductor on 1st November, 1981 but was removed from the said post on 20th December, 1981. He was checked on 15th December, 1981 and is alleged to have committed dis honesty of Rs. 3‑
90. The contention of the appellant was that there was no vacancy. Without charge‑sheeting and holding enquiry he was removed from service He was said to be a badli. No order of removal in writing was recorded. So the provisions of Standing Order 12 (3) were violated. According to the said order, an order of termination should be in writing giving explicit reasons. No distinction is made in Standing Order 12 (3) about badli or any other kind of worker. This order applies to every kind of worker. So even if it be said that the respondent was a badli or that the post did not exist, passing of order of termination giving reasons was necessary. The respondent was in these circumstances rightly directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits and the order of re‑instatement passed by the learned lower Court is not assailable, 1, accordingly, do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.