Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS Respondent: MANZOOR HUSSAIN
1988 P L C 240
1988 P L C 240
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,
Appellate Tribunal
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
versus
MANZOOR HUSSAIN
Appeal No.SG‑709 of 1986, decided on 26th January, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against change of cadre‑ Condudtor of Road Transport Corporation posted as clerk and deprived of emoluments to the extent of commission‑‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly accepted by Labour Court and direction for petitioner tope re‑appointed as conductor upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 25‑11‑1986, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby accepting the grievance petition of the respondent, the respondent was directed to be reappointed as a conductor.
2. The facts are that the respondent was initially employed as a clerk. He was, thereafter, made a conductor. He was vide order dated 6‑1‑1986 posted as a clerk. Admittedly the post of clerk does not belong to the traffic cadre. Thus, by posting the respondent as clerk from the post of conductor, his category was changed without his consent. The respondent challenged the order for the reason that although the grade was the same yet by being posted as clerk, he lost his commission. According to him, he was earning Rs.1,000 per month as commission.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance notice was time‑barred, inasmuch as the order posting the respondent as clerk was passed on 6‑1‑1986 but the grievance notice was sent on 31‑5‑1986. The argument is without force. No doubt, the order whereby the respondent was posted as clerk is dated 6‑1‑1986 but, as stated by the respondent in his statement, he worked upto 15‑3‑1986 as conductor and on 16‑3‑1986 he was relieved from there. The cause of grievance, therefore, arose to the respondent from 16‑3‑1986 and thus the grievance notice sent on 31‑5‑1986 which, according to the postal receipt, reached the appellant on 2‑6‑1986 was well within time.
4. The other point argued is that since initially the respondent was recruited as a clerk, his recategorization from the post of the conductor to that of the clerk did not prejudice him. On the face of it the argument is without force. This is not the case of the appellant that the respondent was posted as a conductor temporarily on the understanding that he would not claim any right against the said post. He was permanently absorbed as a conductor. Since his categoey was changed by posting him as a clerk, he was justified in challenging the order dated 6‑1‑1986. Since the respondent felt contented at the time he was posted as conductor from the post of clerk, he did not A challenge the same but it does not mean that he was debarred from' challenging the order dated 6‑1‑1986 whereby he was posted as a clerk. The respondent lost his emoluments also, inasmuch as, as I stated by him, he used to earn commission while being a conductor.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
A. E. /271/Lb.P
Appeal dismissed.