1989 PLP 358 (PLC)
Appellate Tribunal MEHAR DIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HYE SONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP 358 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | Appellate Tribunal MEHAR DIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HYE SONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 358 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 358 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 358 (PLC) (Appellate Tribunal MEHAR DIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HYE SONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhamm7A Suleman Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 5th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25‑A & 38(3) Confirmation‑‑f fitness for confirmation/ promotion‑‑Labour Court not competent to consider‑‑Employer, held, was competent to decide fitness for confirmation/promotion of employee‑‑Labour Court directing employer to make appointment in accordance with its office order‑‑Workman making grievance in appeal that he was not directed to be confirmed‑‑Order of Labour Court was upheld and workman, was found to have had no grievance to challenge order of Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 12‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was accepted and Haji Ahmad respondent No.2 was reverted. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not directed to be confirmed against the vacancy while directing the reversion of respondent No.2. The position taken by respondent No.l before the learned lower Court was that before promoting Haji Ahmed respondent No.2 against the permanent vacancy the appellant was considered but was not found fit. The learned lower Court has not accepted this version and has held that the appellant was not considered. This being so, now respondent No.l has to consider the appellant for being confirmed on the post of Seasonal Assistant Centrifugal Mate. It is not the function of the Labour Court to consider any employee for being fit for promotion or confirmation. First of all the employer has to decide the fact. Respondent N0.1 has been directed by the learned lower Court to make fresh A appointment in accordance with the Office order 8‑3‑1986, the appellant, therefore, may try his luck before the respondent No.1 He has no grievance to challenge the impugned order. The appeal therefore, is dismissed in limine. A/E./445/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.