1988 PLP 636 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE and 2 others Versus RAB NAWAZ and 40 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 636 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE and 2 others Versus RAB NAWAZ and 40 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 636 (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 636 (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 636 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE and 2 others Versus RAB NAWAZ and 40 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajjad Hussain for Appellants.
- Date of hearing 6th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Transfer‑‑Employee of Road Transport Corporation transferred on plea that he was junior most and thus, had become surplus‑‑Transfer order challenged before Labour Court‑‑Petitioner having proved not to be the junior most, transfer order was set aside by Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court, held, unexceptionable and upheld by Appellate Tribunal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal challenging the decision, dated 18‑4‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. .5, Faisalabad, whereby the transfer of respondent No.l has been declared as illegal
2. The facts are that respondent No.l was transferred from Faisalabad to Jhang on his own request when there was no rule that such a person is to be kept as junior most in the transferee depot. He was further transferred to a depot at Faisalabad on the ground that he was junior most and thus, had become surplus. Respondent No.l challenged this order in his grievance petition, which has been accepted. The rule is that if a person is transferred on his own request, he is to be placed junior to all the persons already working in the transferree depot getting same emoluments. Since respondent No.l was transferred on his own request before the rule was framed, he could not be treated as junior. If he had been informed that he would be placed junior, he may not have insisted upon the prayer of his transfer. The learned counsel has argued that there was no fault of the remaining respondents who vide the impugned order have been placed junior to respondent No.l. Firstly, the said respondents have not felt aggrieved as none of them has come forward to challenge the impugned order. Secondly, as admitted by the learned counsel, all those persons came in service after respondent No.l. They being junior to respondent No.l, would not stand prejudiced by the impugned order of the learned lower Court. The impugned order, therefore, is unexceptional. 3.As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E. /377/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.