Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD


West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O 12 (3) Termination of Service Written Order That Reasons There Are Specific Requirements for All Workers' Replacement Workers Verbally Removed on Request Was, by no means, re-directed by the Labor Court, in these circumstances the Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Sections 25A and 38 (3).

1984 P L C 959

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

versus

IFTIKHAR AHMAD

Appeal No. LHR‑183 of 1983, decided on 4th July, 1983.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. O. 12 (3)‑Termination of service‑Written order giving explicit reasons‑Essential‑Requirement applicable for every kind of worker‑Badli worker removed verbally on plea that there was no vacancy‑Re‑instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances. upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 2nd July, 1983.

JUDGMENT

In this appeal the decision dated 4th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be taken back in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was recruited as conductor on 1st November, 1981 but was removed from the said post on 20th December, 1981. He was checked on 15th December, 1981 and is alleged to have committed dis honesty of Rs. 3‑90. The contention of the appellant was that there was no vacancy. Without charge‑sheeting and holding enquiry he was removed from service He was said to be a badli. No order of removal in writing was recorded. So the provisions of Standing Order 12 (3) were violated. According to the said order, an order of termination should be in writing giving explicit reasons. No distinction is made in Standing Order 12 (3) about badli or any other kind of worker. This order applies to every kind of worker. So even if it be said that the respondent was a badli or that the post did not exist, passing of order of termination giving reasons was necessary. The respondent was in these circumstances rightly directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits and the order of re‑instatement passed by the learned lower Court is not assailable, 1, accordingly, do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

A. E. Appeal 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best law firm from Faisalabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.