Find a Lawyer

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

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

versus


Railway Servants (Performance and Discipline) Rules 1975 R 5 (1) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII of 1969), Sections 25A & 38 (3) Order of suspension of railway employees Labor court suspension order indefinitely Determined by the authorized source extension required. The option is not extended every three months after the expiry of three months in the order
1986 P L C 623

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKAR

Versus

MUHAMMAD ASLAM JAVED

Appeal No. BR‑558 of 1985/Pb., decided on 22nd December,1985.

Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑

‑‑‑R 5(1)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &38(3)‑‑Railway employee‑‑Suspension‑‑Order for indefinite period‑Set side by Labour Court‑‑Suspension order required to be extended by competent authority after every three months‑‑Order not extended after expiry of three months‑‑Valid for three months‑‑Orders of Labour Court in circumstances, modified by Appellate Tribunal declaring suspension beyond three months only as illegal and employee allowed back benefit from such date onward.

Sh. Abdul Jabbar for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 17th December, 1985.

JUDGMENT

The decision, dated 22‑9‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged, whereby the order of suspension was set aside in toto.

2. On account of registration of a criminal case, the respondent was suspended for an indefinite period. According to rule 5 of the Railways Efficiency & Discipline Rules, where the employer decides to hold inquiry, the employee concerned can be suspended for three months and if it is required that suspension should continue, after every three months, the suspension order is extended by the competent authority. In the present case the suspension was not extended on the expiry of three months. So from 10‑3‑1981 the suspension became illegal and could not be allowed to stand. The learned lower Court, however, wrongly set aside the suspension with effect from the date it was passed. Since for the first three months the order was legal, it could not be set aside.

3. As a result the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision, the order of suspension from 10‑12‑1980 to 9‑3‑1981 is declared as legal and is revived. The suspension order beyond 9‑3‑1981 being illegal was rightly set aside and back benefits rightly allowed.

A. E.

Appeal partly accepted.

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
immigration advocate from Zahir Pir 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.