1988 PLP 991 (PLC(CS))
ABDUR REHMAN Versus DIRECTOR FINANCE, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 991 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN Versus DIRECTOR FINANCE, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 991 (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 1988 PLP 991 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1988 PLP 991 (PLC(CS)) (ABDUR REHMAN Versus DIRECTOR FINANCE, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mr. Munawar Ahmad Javed for Petitioner.
- Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A(8) & 38(3-a)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 249-A- Complaint under S. 25-A(8) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for non compliance with directions of Labour Court--Element of criminal intention necessary ingredient to establish criminal charge--Labour Court accepting grievance petition against reversion of Cashier of Punjab Road Transport Board as senior clerk and directing his re-posting as Cashier not at. a particular place--Re-posting as cashier--Order passed with transfer to other station--Transfer to other station contended to be a non-compliance and employee filing complaint under S. 25-A(8)--Labour Court acquitting accused under S. 249-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898--No non-compliance or criminal intention, held, was involved--Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A(8) & 38(3-a)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 249-A- Complaint under S. 25-A(8) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for non compliance with directions of Labour Court--Element of criminal intention necessary ingredient to establish criminal charge--Labour Court accepting grievance petition against reversion of Cashier of Punjab Road Transport Board as senior clerk and directing his re-posting as Cashier not at. a particular place--Re-posting as cashier--Order passed with transfer to other station--Transfer to other station contended to be a non-compliance and employee filing complaint under S. 25-A(8)--Labour Court acquitting accused under S. 249-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898--No non-compliance or criminal intention, held, was involved--Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision. Mr. Munawar Ahmad Javed for Petitioner. Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th August, 1984. The. above captioned revision seeks to give information that the order dated 24-3-1983 dismissing the complaint of the petitioner is illegal.
2. The petitioner was a Cashier and was reverted as Senior Clerk. The order was successfully challenged by the petitioner under section 25-A and appeal was dismissed. The respondents thereupon transferred the petitioner to Sahiwal as Cashier. Thereupon, the petitioner brought a complaint under section 25-A(8). It has been argued that since it was found that the petitioner had not become surplus, he should have been reposted as Cashier on his original place and the act of the respondent in transferring him to Sahiwal amounted to contempt. The order was of reposting the petitioner as Cashier but was not that in all probabilities he be posted at Faisalabad. This being so, the transfer of the petitioner did not amount to contempt of Court. Since he was, in compliance of the order of the learned lower Court, as confirmed by this Tribunal, reposted as Cashier, the order was duly complied with. if the direction had been that he be posted as Cashier at Faisalabad, of course it would have been necessary for the respondents to do so. Needless to say that the element of criminal intention is a necessary ingredient in criminal cases to establish a criminal charge. The respondents, therefore, were rightly acquitted under section 249-A of Cr.P.C.
3. As a result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. A.E./1088/Lb. S. Revision dismissed.