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.

MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR KHAN versus SARBRAH VEGETABLE GHEE AND GENERAL MILLS. FAISALABAD


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3) Promotion Not Applicable to the Applicant Who Does Not Develop a Request for Complaint Claiming a Person's Appeal Tribunal and a Labor Court Order Rejected by the Applicant , Is advised, wait for next opportunity.
1986 P L C 630

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR KHAN

Versus

SARBRAH VEGETABLE GHEE AND GENERAL MILLS. FAISALABAD

Appeal No.FD‑635 of 1985, decided on 27th January, 1986.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Petitioner not senior to person promoted‑‑Grievance petition claiming promotion dismissed by Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal and petitioner, advised, to wait for next chance.

Munawar Ahmad Javaid for Appellant.

Naveed Rasool Mirza and Muhammad Bilal for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986.

JUDGMENT

The decision, dated 22‑10‑1985 recorded by learned Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the Appellant for his promotion to get Grade No.5 was dismissed.

2. The appellant initially was recruited as an apprentice. He completed the period of apprenticeship on 9‑4‑1974. His services were terminated on 21‑2‑1975 and vide order Exh.P.2 he was re‑instated. Thereafter a compromise was effected between the appellant and the management and vide order EXh. R.I he was to be given Grade No.4 Rs.175‑18‑283125‑583), with effect from 1‑4‑1980. So far as Abdul Wahad is concerned he was appointed as operator on 17‑7‑1975, vide order EXh. R. 11 in the time scale of Rs.175‑18‑283/25‑433. His salary was fixed at Rs.247. Since Abdul Wahad came in the grade 175‑18‑283/25‑433 earlier than the appellant he became senior. This is true that the grade of Abdul Wahad given in Exh.R.11 is as 175‑18‑283/25‑433 whereas vide compromise Exh.R.I the appellant was placed in grade 175‑18‑283/25‑583 but it may be that the grade was revised and thus it became 175‑18‑283125‑583 and as at the time Abdul Wahad entered this grade it was up to Rs.433, therefore, there appears to be a difference but actually the grade is the same. Since Abdul Wahad was senior he was rightly given next grade No.5 and the appellant cannot complete with him. He should wait for the next chance.

3. As a result of the observations made above the appeal is dismissed.

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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
online advocate from Kotli Loharan 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.