Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Appeal No. LHR‑291 of 1983, decided on 19th March, 1984.
‑‑ Absorption of surplus staff‑Railway employees‑Railway follow ing a policy for absorption of surplus staff‑‑Absorption, in circum stances, held, a legal right‑Worker (appellant) rendered surplus on completion of project‑Others in similar situation absorbed under a policy‑Labour Court's order directing absorption of appellant, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Syed Muhammad Naqi for Appellant.
Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 12th March, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 19th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be absorbed and the question of wages for the period he remained out of job be decided in accordance with law.
2. The respondent was employed at Bridge Sarang at Bridge Dera Ghazi Khan on 16th November, 1967. He was promoted as Bridge Mistry. On the completion of the project he was transferred to Kotri Bridge Project. Then he was promoted as Assistant Bridge Inspector. On the completion of the project he became surplus and was sent to Lahore for being absorbed. In all 16 persons were rendered surplus including the respondent. Vide Exh. P. 4 all others have been absorbed in the single shop. When the Railway ha made a policy to absorb surplus staff, it gives a legal right to the person rendered surplus. The fact that 15 persons have been absorbed proved the policy. This is true that absorption is always subject to availability of post but it has not been proved that there is no post. On 11th November, 1980 the respondent was relieved from Kotri but during the period of more than three years he has not been absorbed. The solitary witness R. W. 1 has not said that there is no post for the respondent. During this period many vacancies must have been filled in. So, the respondent could be easily adjusted against one of them.
3. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly directed the appel lant to absorb the respondent. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer