Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑389 of 1983, decided on 3rd October, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Scope‑Court can grant any relief if acceptable to petitioner‑Employee of Road Transport Board promoted from post of Booking Clerk as Assistant Depot Superintendent and trans ferred from Lahore‑Requesting for being posted at Lahore and may be reverted as Booking Clerk if no post of Assistant Depot Superintendent available‑Request granted but again after some time transferred out of Lahore as Booking Clerk‑On grievance petition Labour Court directing that for his posting as Assistant Depot Superintendent if posted out of Lahore or in alternative as Booking Clerk at Lahore‑Contention that prayer in petition was only for posting as Assistant Depot Superintendent and as such alternate direction for his posting as Booking Clerk at Lahore could not be given by Labour Court ‑ Contention, in circumstances, rejected by Appellate Tribunal and impugned order of Labour Court, held, not suffering from any legal infirmity.

Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 1st October, 1983.

The decision dated 18th May, 1983 has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be posted as Assistant Depot Superintendent, Gujranwala instead of being posted as Booking Clerk or appointed as Booking Clerk at Lahore.

2. The facts are that the respondent was Assistant Depot Superin tendent at Sheikhupura. He applied that he be transferred to Lahore and may be reverted as Booking Clerk if no post of Assistant Depot Superintendent was vacant‑at the said place. His request was acceded to and he was posted at Lahore as a Booking Clerk on 18th April 1981. He was on 19th January, 1982 vide order Exh. P. 6 transferred to Gujranwala as Booking Clerk. This order arranged the parties in litigation,

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prayer of the respondent in his petition under section 25‑A was only that he be posted as Assistant Depot Superintendent as he had asked for reversion only for being posted at Lahore and did not say that he be sent back to Lahore as Booking Clerk, so the learned lower Court was not justified in granting this additional relief that was not prayed for. I do not find much force in this argument of the learned counsel. This is not an unconditional direction but an alternative way out. If the appellant cannot for some reasons send back the respondent to Lahore as Booking Clerk they may post him as Assistant Depot Superintendent. The respondent could have felt aggrieved by the grant of this alternative relief because it was for posting him as Booking Clerk which is below the rank of Assistant Depot Superintendent but strange enough to set that instead of the respondent the appellant is feeling aggrieved. Since the respondent had been posted, as Booking Clerk at Lahore by the appellant on the formers request, so the grant of this alternative relief was quite just and proper even though it was specifically sought for. The Court can grant any relief if it is acceptable to the person knocking its door. I, therefore do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order.

4. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any forte in the appeal and dismiss it 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.