Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Appeal No.SL-655 of 1985, decided on 15th January, 1986
---Ss.38(3) & 38(3-a)--Appeal--Revision--Impugned order not appealable-- Appeal can be treated as revision.
--S. 25-A--Grievance--Performance of duty--Workman placed in surplus pool and given due wages but without performing duty--Non-performance of duty, in circumstances, held, was not a cause of grievance.
Sh. Safdar Jang and Muhammad lqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
Arshad Munir, Representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th January, 1986.
The order, dated 30-11-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore suspending, the operation of the order, dated 16-8-1985 is reported to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned order has not been passed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, so no appeal lies but a revision could have been brought. Where the orders are not appealable the appeals can be treated as revisions and accordingly, the present appeal is treated as a revision.
2. The facts are that P.R.T.B. was dissolved, vide Notification dated 9-5-1985 and all its assets, liabilities and business were ordered to vest in the Government and all the employees were placed in surplus pool. On 12-5-1985 Mr. Afzal Kahut was appointed as Managing Director of P.U.T.C. On the same date the Provincial Government issued order to the effect that all the employees placed in the surplus pool would continue to perform their duties, which they were performing on 9-5-1985 under the Managing Director, P.U.T.C. On 17-7-1985 the Government appointed Mr. Kahut, Managing Director of P.U.T.C., as Administrator of P.R.T.E, employees already placed in surplus pool. While the employees placed under pool were discharging their duties under the order of the Government, dated 12-5-1985. Mr. Afzal Kahut ordered on 16-8-1985 that they would continue to remain in the pool. However, they were taken out of duties although they continued to get their pay. This order has been challenged by the respondent 'union before the learned lower Court.
3. The learned lower Court has failed to consider that the performance of duties is not necessary. Since 51 employees are admittedly in service and are getting wages, prima facie they cannot have any grievance. As yet no such order has been passed which may be prejudicial to their rights. It is not feared that Mr. Kahut, Administrator would pass any order ignoring inter se seniority of the employees placed in the pool. Since out of the pool only 51 persons have been stopped from performing duties, Mr. Kahut may be contemplating not to retain them in transport service but as uptil now no steps have been taken in this respect, the grievance petition of the respondent prima facie is premature. It is expected that if there is any justification to retain not all but only some of the employees in transport service, Mr. Kahut would keep in view the rule of first come last go. The learned lower Court has, therefore, wrongly held that the respondent union has an arguable case. There was, therefore, no justification to suspend the order, dated 16-8-1985 conveyed on 19-8-1985.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and the impugned order is vacated.
A.E.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer