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‑730 of 1979, decided on 20th March, 1982.
‑‑Transfer‑Foreman (Carpentry) in Body Building Workshop of Punjab Road Transport Board transferred to Central Workshop‑Job of carpentry not existing in Central Workshop concerned with maintenance and repair of engines‑Such work not known to and not of trade of petitioner Foreman‑‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition and setting aside impugned transfer order, in circumstances, held, justified and upheld by Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Muhammad Salim Khan for Appellant.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 30th January, 1982.
In this appeal the decision, dated 29th June, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent made against his transfer was accepted and the transfer was set aside.
2. The respondent was employed as Foreman in Body Building Work shop. On 4th July, 1978 he was transferred to Central Workshop, Lahore. The order of transfer was challenged by the respondent on the ground that his trade was carpentry, but there was no carpentry work in the Central Workshop. He also denied that he had become surplus in the Body Building Workshop and that even if there was any surplus staff his juniors were present and first of all they should have been transferred. Appearing as P. W. 1 the respondent stated that Body Building Workshop and Central Workshop were quite separate from each other. He further stated that in the Body Building Workshop bodies of the buses were manufactured, whereas in the Central Workshop maintenance and repairing of engines was dons, and that there no bodies are manufactured. He also stated that he did not know any work relating to engines as he was a carpenter and his job was to do wood work. No evidence in rebuttal was produced with the' result that the statement on oath of the respondent remained un-controverted. He had also stated that the Works Manager of both the workshops were different persons. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was' justified m accepting the grievance petition of the respondent and setting aside the transfer order. 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