Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WAPDA VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD KHALIL
1993 P L C 912
1993 P L C 912
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
WAPDA
Versus
MUHAMMAD KHALIL
Revision No. LHR‑503 of 1986, decided on 18th November, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑WAPDA employee placed under suspension‑‑Labour Court suspending suspension order on grievance petition challenging validity of charge‑sheet‑‑‑Order of Labour Court challenged in revision on plea that petitioner being a civil servant, Labour Court had no jurisdiction‑‑‑Such objection taken in written statement before Labour Court but decision thereon not yet obtained‑‑‑Such point, held, cannot be adjudicated upon in revision‑‑‑No proof that suspension order already had taken effect‑‑ Labour Court, in circumstances, held, was justified in suspending suspension order.
Ch.Ghulam Hassan Gulshan for Petitioner.
Mian Khurshid Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986.
ORDER
This is a revision reporting that the order dated 9‑8‑1986 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore suspending the order of suspension of the respondent, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The respondent is a meter reader. On the allegation of misconduct he was issued a show‑cause notice and was simultaneously suspended. He challenged the charge‑sheet on the ground of being time‑barred. He applied for the suspension of the operation of the suspension order.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as pleaded in the written statement the respondent is a civil servant and thus the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. This is true that in the written statement such an objection has been taken but as yet no decision from the learned lower Court has been obtained, so this point cannot be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in revision.
4. The other point argued is that the order of suspension has taken effect, so the Services Tribunal and not the learned Labour Court has jurisdiction in the matter. No material has been shown to the effect that the suspension order had taken effect before it was suspended by the learned lower Court No service of relieving order has been contended. Even no copy of the relieving order has been brought on the record. Even this has not been shown that the order of suspension had been conveyed in writing to the respondent. No signatures of the respondent in token of service appear on the photo copy of the suspension order brought on the file, nor any postal or A.D. receipt has been produced to show that it was sent by registered post. So, at present it does not appear that the suspension order was actually given effect to. The impugned order, therefore, is justified.
5. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed.
A.E./220/Lb.P Revision dismissed