Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 2212 1981 SLD 2212 1981 PLC 357
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-528 of 1979, heard on 6th November 1980.
Z. A. CHANNA, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SHAUKAT ALI

VS

GENERAL MANAGER, T & G, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute- -- Reversion to lower rank/grade- Opportunity of show cause­-Necessary- Audi alteram partem -Principle of natural justice­-Deemed to be enshrined in all laws unless its application excluded specifically-WAPDA employee--Stenographer promoted to Grade (­Promotion order made by competent authority unconditionally­-Promotion subsequently sought to be withdrawn on plea that same was done not keeping in view seniority as per requirements of rules and made simply on merit basis-Promotion, in circumstances, held, had created vested right which could not be taken away on principle of locus poenitentiae-Reversion made without show cause opportunity, in circumstances, held, not tenable. Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah P L D 1969 S C 407 rel. Rafique Ahmad for Appellant. Imam Ali Memon for Respondents. ORDER This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 25-10-1979, prejecting the grievance petition of the appellant challenging, his reversion from the post of the Stenographer Grade 1, in N. P. S. 14, to that of Stenographer, Grade 1, N. P. S. 11, and the appointment of the respondent, No. 3, on retransfer from Lahore Office, in his place. In coming to this contention, the learned Labour Court was mainly influenced by the circumstances that the respondent was senior to the appellant by 7 years, that the promotion of the appellant was ostensibly made purely on the basis of merit, when the rule, as modified, required both merit and seniority to be taken into consideration and that further the appointment of the appellant was apparently made without consulting the Chief Engineer at Lahore, who in the Cadre Controlling Authority. 2. Now, as regards the respective length of service of the appellant and respondent No. 3, there is no dispute and upon comparison of the same it is quite evident that the said respondent is far senior in service, as well as in every grade thereof, to the appellant. However, the seniority of the respondent would be material only if there was one grade of Stenographers or at least Stenographers, Grade I, in N. P. S. 14, for the Water Wing of WAPDA in whole of Pakistan. It was strongly…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492