Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 317 1994 SLD 317 1994 PLC 505
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7536 of 1992, heard on 1st March, 1994,
IHSANULHAQ CHAUDHRY, J
Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. SA. Latif for
Respondent No. 3.

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through the Divisional Superintendent, Lahore

VS

PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-------R. 2(2)(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Legal wrong--­Setting right of---Constitutional jurisdiction---Exercise of---Employers had not challenged orders of Courts below according to which employee was re­instated in service, but had contended that employee who was a workman, was to be dealt with under Rules, but Courts below had wrongly determined Appointing Authority in case of employee under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Findings of Courts below to that extent were set aside by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction for setting right legal wrong in orders of Courts below. JUDGMENT The respondent No. 3 was serving with the petitioner as Fireman. He was found absent from duty without leave. The petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings and ultimately terminated his services vide order dated 11-8-1982. The respondent No. 3 assailed this order through an appeal before the Divisional Superintendent, who dismissed the same vide order dated 1-9-1982, The respondent No. 3 thereafter filed a grievance petition, which was partially accepted by the Labour Court vide order dated 18-4-1992. The result was that both the parties impugned this order through separate appeals before the respondent No. 1, who accepted the appeal of the respondent No. 3 as per its own concession while rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide consolidated judgment dated 17-6-1992. The petitioner has not challenged the judgments of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through this Constitutional petition, which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No. 3 has appeared through his learned counsel while the others did not appear, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that as far as order of reinstatement is concerned the petitioner has accepted that and he has instructions not to agitate against the same in this Constitutional petition. However, he submitted that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have based their judgments on wrong provisions of the rules. 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