Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25-A, 36 & 38(3-a)---Status quo---Order of Labour Court directing status quo in favour of workmen pending decision of their grievance application had been challenged by employer through revision---Employer had partly admitted claim of workmen regarding promotion to higher grade as certain conductors and one driver had been promoted by employer in higher grade---Tribunal had also maintained ad interim stay order issued by Labour Court in earlier case---Case was not fit to be interfered with by Tribunal in its suo motu revisional power. Revision Applications Nos. KAR-119 to 127 of 1991 and 134 of 1991 ref, Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Applicants. Latif Saghar for Respondents Nos. 1 and 8. Yousuf Khan, Representative for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7, DECISION I propose to dispose of all the aforementioned 8 suo motu Revision Applications by this single order as points of fact and law involved in all the applications are same or similar. 2. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the applicants and Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 8, so also Mr. Yousuf Khan, learned representative for respondents Nos. 2 to 7. 3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that all the respondents were initially employed by the applicants as conductors. They claim that since several years they have been working in higher grade as Traffic Assistants. However, the applicant by order, dated 27-11-1990 directed the respondents to work again as conductors. The respondents claim that by operation of Standing Orders Ordinance…

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