1986 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus KAMAL DIN
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus KAMAL DIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1092 (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 1986 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus KAMAL DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shamsul Haque for Appellant.
- Ch. Khalid Farooq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th January, 1986
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Reversion to lower post to make room for seniors in pursuance of Court's order‑‑Junior persons retained‑‑Grievance petition against reversion, held, was rightly accepted by Labour Court directing payment of difference of pay.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Reversion to lower post to make room for seniors in pursuance of Court's order‑‑Junior persons retained‑‑Grievance petition against reversion, held, was rightly accepted by Labour Court directing payment of difference of pay. Mian Shamsul Haque for Appellant. Ch. Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1986 The decision dated 9‑10‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby accepting the grievance petition of the respondent his reversion order was set aside and he was directed to be reposted as Time Checker with effect from 15‑1‑1983 and to pay him difference of pay.
2. Vide order Exh.P.6 the appellant reverted the respondent from the post of Time Checker to the post of Conductor on the ground that 11 petitioners of 25‑A Petition No. 527 of 1978 were to be promoted and he was the junior most conductor. It has been argued that since the respondent was junior to many Time‑Checkers so he was rightly reverted. The decision of Petition No. 527 of 1978 was that the persons directly appointed or taken in service from ex‑cadre as TEs and STEs should be respectively terminated and reverted and the vacancies be filled in from the subordinate cadre by cent per cent promotions. Admittedly at the time the respondent was reverted three time‑checkers junior to him such as the one mentioned at serial Nos.55, 57 and 70 in the seniority list Exh.R.W.‑1/A were junior to the respondent but, it A was not shown that they had been reverted. Since there were two junior clerks to the respondent, he could not be legally reverted to make room for the eleven petitioners of Case No. 527 of 1978. Even a Conductor the respondent was senior to many such as Azam, Iqbal and Maqsood Ahmad. Only the reversion of the juniors of the respondent. if further reversion was necessary could be made. Since it was not shown that his juniors had been reverted prior‑‑to him, the learned lower Court rightly directed his reposting as Time‑Checker with effect from 15‑1‑1983 with payment of difference of pay.
3. As a result, the appeal being without any substance .s dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.