Find a Lawyer

Application No. HYD‑289 of 1981, heard on 19^thSeptember, 1981.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑--

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A (9) (b)‑Complaint regarding violation of order of Court‑Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of employer regarding reversion of petitioner workman with option to review or modify earlier promotion order after opportunity of hearing to petitioner‑Petitioner re‑instated and served with show‑cause notice to explain why promotion order being not regular be with drawn‑Satisfactory cause not shown by petitioner hence reverted by competent authority and claim for arrears of pay on higher post recommended to higher competent authority‑Petitioner moving complaint before Appellate Tribunal allegedly complaining viola tion of order of Tribunal‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, had failed to make out any case for action against employer because he had been re‑instated and reverted after show‑cause notice.

Applicant in person.

Imam Ali Memon for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19^thSeptember, 1981.

By the order, made on 6^thNovember, 1980, this Tribunal had set aside the order of reversion of the applicant from N.P.S. 14 to N.P.S.

11 but at the same time had given an option to the competent authority to review or modify the order of promotion of the applicant after giving him an opportunity of being heard.

2. The applicant claims that the above orders of this Tribunal have been violated inasmuch as he has not been granted or continued in the grade on N. P. S. 14 but as has been reverted to N. P. S. 11. The appl icant had filed a complaint against the respondent before the learned Labour Court but the same dismissed on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter ‑as the order violated was of this Tribunal and the case fell to be decided under the provisions of clause (b) of subsec tion (9) of section 25‑A,1. R. O. The applicant has accordingly approached this Tribunal for taking action against the respondent for violating its orders.

3. I have heard the applicant who appeared in person and Mr. Imam Ali Memon, who appeared for the respondent Chief Engineer. Mr. Imam Ali submitted that the orders of this Tribunal have been duly complied with inasmuch as the original order of the reversion of the applicant was withdrawn and he was allowed to hold the post in N. P. S. 14 but at the same time as permitted by this Tribunal, a show‑cause notice was issued to him why he should not reverted to the post in N. P. S. 11 as his promotion to N. P. S. 14 was irregular, and since the appli cant failed to show satisfactory cause or in fact any cause, he was reverted to N.P.S. 11. In support of his contention Mr. Imam Ali placed before me copies of 3 orders. The first order is dated 13^thDecember, 1980, and it modifies the original order, dated 5th December, 1977, reverting the applicant in N. P. S. 11 and it provides that in compliance with the judgment of this Tribunal, the applicant is temporarily promoted to the senior scale in N. P. S. 14. The second order is the show cause issued to the applicant requiring him to explain why he should not be reverted to N. P. S. 1.1. The last order is dated', 13^thDecember, 1980 by which the applicant is reverted in N. P. S. 11.

4. Mr. Imam Ali has further submitted that in consequence the order, dated 13th December, 1980, continuing the applicant in N. P. S. 14 upto 13th December, 1980, when he was reverted to N. P. S. 11 after due office, the respondent has requested the WAPDA authorities at Lahore to arrange the payment of arrears to the applicant from the date of his original promotion to N.P.S. 14 in 1977 upto 13th December, 1980.

5. The applicant sought to argue that in fact there has been no order of his re installment in N. P. S. 14. In view of the office order, dated 13^thDecember, 1980, and the submission made by Mr. Imam Ali regarding reference to the Head Office of WAPDA for the payment of arrears to the applicant, the contention of the applicant has no substance. It was next submitted by the applicant that although he had submitted reply to the show‑cause notice in time, the WAPDA authorities have wrongly claimed that he had failed to submit his explanation to the show Cause notice within time and have accordingly reverted him to N. P. S. 11 in violation of the orders of this Tribunal. Since there are conflicting contentions on this point by the opposing parties it would be a question of fact whether the applicant did submit his explanation to show‑cause notice in time. It appears that the applicant has submitted a grievance petition to the learned Labour Court against the orders, dated 13^thDecember, 1980, regarding his reversion to N. P. S. 11. In those pro ceedings, appropriate evidence regarding this point can tie led and examined.

6. In view of the above circumstance, I find that the applicant has failed to make out any case for taking of action against the respondent either under clause (b) of subsection (9) of section 25‑A. I. R. O., or for the exercise of powers of Contempt of Court by this Tribunal. The application is accordingly dismissed:

Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.