Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 1611 1983 SLD 1611 1983 PLC 577
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. MN-549 of 1982/Pb., decided on 2nd April, 1983.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, 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

ZAHEER-ULHASAN SAJAD

VS

COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD.

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)­--- ----Ss. 25-A & 37-Petitioner claiming higher pay on grounds of having been promoted-Promoted not established by evidence on record-Petition, in circumstances, held, rightly. dismissed by Labour Court. Muhammad Anwar Awan for Appellant. M. S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing : 28th March, 1983.. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 9-8-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8 Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. The prayer made in the grievance petition reads as under :- "In view of the above submissions it is respectfully prayed that the order of the respondents dated 8-7-1981 be declared as without any lawful authority, illegal, without jurisdiction and mala fide and the same be set aside. It is further prayed that back benefits occurring to the petitioner since from his promotion i, e.: 15-3-1980, be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The appellant claimed that he was promoted as Quality Assistant vide order Exh. P-1 dated 17-3-1980 with effect from 15-3-1980 and had taken duty as such and that as he could not prevail upon his father who too is an employee of the respondent, to vacate the quarter allotted to him, order of promotion was withdrawn vide order Exh. P-2 dated 8-7-1981. The case of the respondent is that neither the appellant was ever promoted as Quality Assistant, nor any order of promotion was withdrawn and that both the orders, Exhs. P-1 and P-2 are forged documents. To show that the appellant was promoted as Quality Assistant the learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to Exhs. P-3, P-5 and P-6. He has argued that Exhs. P-3 and P-5 are signed by the appellant and he has described himself as Quality Assistant therein. On Exh. P-3 the words "Q Ch/Q. Asstt" are printed and the words "Q. Ch" are cancelled with pen ink. In Exh. P-5 below the signatures the words "Q. Asstt." ace printed. This is not proved if Exhs. P-3 and P-5 bear the signatures of the appellant. The appellant did not say that these documents bear his signatures. These are loose papers If they had been original then…
🔒
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