Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1677 1984 SLD 1677 1984 PLC 1097
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-462 of 1982, decided on 3rd October, 1983.
SARDAR 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

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER

VS

MUKHTAR AHMAD

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -- S. O. 12(3)-Termination of service-Badli conductor in Road Transport Corporation Refused duty orally - Contention that there was no work for him-Original incumbent against whose post such Badli conductor appointed not reported to have returned Termination order, in circumstances, held, illegal for that reason and also violative of S. O. 12(3) being not in writing-Re­instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3). Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1983. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 6th July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. 2. The appellant was employed as Badli conductor vide appointment order Exh. P. 6, dated 14th November, 1981. The bus conducted by him was checked and it was alleged that he had received fare from two passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Reply to Form T.T.-40 was taken from him but without the issuance of any charge-sheet and holding any enquiry into the allegation, he was refused duty orally. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the point that the substituted section 7 of the Road Transport Ordinance does not include Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, so there cannot be any concept of Badli employee as contemplated by Standing Order 1. He has also argued that Badli employees are employed by P. U. T. C. on work charged basis, therefore, they are paid for the days they work and thus the respondent was not entitled to back benefits. He…
🔒
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