Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 1198 1988 SLD 1198 1988 PLC 593
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-106 of 1987, decided on 11th May, 1987.
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

DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS), PUTC and another

VS

RIAZ KHALID

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss.25-A a 38(3)--Promotion--Grievance petition against reversion from post of Superintendent in Transport Corporation--Labour Court accepting grievance petition and passing unconditional order of promotion of petitioner without adverting to question of seniority-cum­-fitness--Order of Labour Court modified by Appellate Tribunal directing management to re-examine case of promotion according to seniority-­cum-fitness and promotion of petitioner/respondent to remain intact if he was senior most and fit for promotion. Muhammad Saleem Khan and Muhammad Nawaz for Appellants. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1987. JUDGMENT The decision dated 17-3-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab. Labour Court No.l, Lahore has been challenged in the appeal captioned above, whereby the order of demotion recorded against the respondent was set aside. 2. The respondent was in 1981 promoted as Superintendent, Establishment Branch, Central Workshop in officiating capacity. He was later on 31-5-1984 regularly promoted by the order of acting Manager, Central Workshop. On 1-11-1984 the Director (Operations) PUTC advised the acting Manager, Central Workshop to cancel the order of promotion and accordingly on 6-11-1984 the respondent was demoted. He aggrieved of the order brought a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, from the decision of which present appeal emerges. The main attack of the appellants is that the acting Manager Central Workshop was not competent to order promotion of the respondent. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that vide delegation of powers Exhs.P.6/1 and 2 the principal officers were authorised to promote persons upto NPS-15 and that since the acting Manager Central Workshop does not come within the category of principal officers, he was not competent to promote the respondent and, therefore the Director (Operations) had rightly asked him to withdraw the order of promotion The argument has no force. According to para. 13 of Exh.P.5/11, the Manager Central Workshop has been given all administrative…
🔒
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