Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1219 1998 SLD 1219 1998 PLC 87
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-289 of 1996, decision dated: 19-05-1997.
MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, CHAIRMAN

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

MANAGING DIRECTOR, PASSCO, LAHORE and 2 others

VS

KHALID ZULQARNAIN

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute-------Promotion---Employee despite being senior to co-employee was not granted promotion on due date, but co-employee who was junior to him was granted promotion prior to employee---Employee was superseded for the reason that due to his absence from duty for few hours he was once warned---Labour Court rightly found that warning could not be made a basis, for supersession of employee, particularly when employee had been granted casual leave for the whole day, although employee had applied for a short leave and he left office for a short while---Even otherwise employee could not be ignored without holding a domestic enquiry and without holding him guilty of misconduct at the time of promotion of his colleagues---Labour Court rightly held that no justification existed for inflicting upon employee penalty in the form of his deprivation from promotion from the due date. Shoaib Saeed for Appellants. Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1997. JUDGMENT By way of the instant appeal has been called in question the soundness of the decision dated 25-11-1996, rendered by Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, camping at Sahiwal, Presiding Officer being Mr. K. M. Sohel. 2. Khalid Zulqarnain, a Purchase Inspector, working with PASSCO, had on 21-6-1995 filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the 'Authorities' of the PASSCO, as also other five Purchase Inspectors, and had challenged the validity of the act of the ' Authorities' of PASSCO, in ignoring him and promoting respondents Nos. 4 to 8 (before the Labour Court) instead, from a certain date. His departmental appeal was allowed, but still he had sense of deprivation, in as much as he was promoted with effect from 20-2-1993, although the due date was 20-5-1992. It is not denied that Khalid Zulqarnain is senior to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 before the, Labour Court, who had got the promotion with effect from 20-5-1992. Khalid was superseded for the reason that for his abence from duty he had once been warned. The learned Labour Court has expressed the view that this warning could not be made a basis for supersession of…
🔒
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