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.725 of 1984, decided on 23rd February, 1985.
‑‑Reversion on account of abolition of posts‑To be made seniority- wise‑Reversion made not in accordance with seniority and juniors retained‑Order of reversion, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A and 38 (3).
Zia Ullah for Appellant.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th February, 1985.
The decision dated 18th November, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby Muhammad Ali, respondent, was directed to be restored to his original position as S. T. E. and T. E. with full back benefits.
2. On account of abolition of the posts of S. T. Es. and T. Es. the respondent, who was an S. T. E. was reverted to the post of conductor. He challenged the reversion before the learned lower Court.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that a writ is pending, therefore, the learned lower Court's order is not maintainable. On the face of it the argument is without force. Since no stay order is alleged to have been issued by the High Court, the case had to be disposed of by the learned lower Court one way or the other. The appellant did not order reversion in accordance with seniority list. According to Exh. R. 4, the persons mentioned at serial Nos. 1, 4, 5 to 9 and 18 are junior to the respondent but they were retained as S. T. E. and the respondent was reverted. Qamar Din, Iqbal Hussain, Taj Muhammad and Sh. Muhammad Akbar were working as Inspectors on 5th December, 1981 when the respondent was reverted. They too are junior to the respondent. If at all for some reasons best known to the appellant, the respondent could not be retained as S. T. E., he should have been reverted as Inspector and not as a conductor. So the impugned order of the learned lower Court is correct and needs no interference.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and 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