| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1512 1990 SLD 1512 1990 PLC 689 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos. LHR-538 and 539 of 1988, decided on 13th December, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MA. Rashid for Appellant. Khalid Pervaiz for
Respondents.
Appeals Nos. LHR-538 and 539 of 1988, decided on 13th December, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MA. Rashid for Appellant. Khalid Pervaiz for
Respondents.
DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE
VS
MUHAMMAD RAZAK and another
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ----Ss.1(4) & 2(bb)---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)---Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975), Ss. 10 & 17---Lahore Development Authority deriving its authority from statute and not working under direct authority of Government---Performing of functions was not legal in nature---Authority was covered by definition of "construction industry" as per S.2(bb) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---Water and Sanitation Agency a part of Lahore Development Authority performing functions of water supply by constructing water works and to construct and maintain drains and sewerage falls within ambit of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---Major penalty of removal from service imposed upon workman of WASA without inquiry as per requirements of said Ordinance thus was not sustainable---Labour Court, therefore, rightly accepted grievance petition of such workman for reinstatement. Lahore Development Authority (WASA) v. Salahuddin 1983 P L C 281 rel. P L D 1975 S C 244 ref. JUDGMENT The appear captioned above emerge from the decision dated 2.6-9-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby tree grievance petitions of the respondents for their reinstatement in service were accepted and they were directed to be reinstated in service allowing the appellant to take action tinder Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. 2. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Lahore Development Authority is not an industry, therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to it. The line of argument of the learned counsel is that the Lahore Development Authority is functioning under the authority of the Government and has its own statutory rules of service. The definition of `Industrial establishment' is given in section…
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