1986 PLC 971

The petitioner's case in brief is that he was working as Traffic Inspector when he was reduced in rank unjustifiably and posted as Deputy Chief Controller on November, 1981. His reduction in rank frustrated him to such an extent that he applied for L.P.R. in order to get premature retirement. Subsequently, he changed his mind. He wrote for withdrawal of said application. The respondents did not concede to his request. They sent him on L.P. R., forcibly. Keeping in view the fact that he cannot be retired against his wishes as such the same may be set aside with a direction for his reinstatement rest respectively.

2. The respondents opposed this petition on the ground that petitioner's request to withdraw his application for L.P.R., was not received by them. Moreover, application for L.P.R., once tendered could not be withdrawn. The respondents further alleged that petitioner is neither a worker nor he served a valid grievance notice under the labour law. At the same time, he is estopped by his conduct. It has also been maintained by them that petitioner is no more an employee of the respondents hence he cannot move this Court.

3. In order to reach at a conclusion I have gone through the record and heard the arguments. The petitioner has tendered Exh. P‑I whereby he asked for cancellation of his application for L.P.R. This document is previous to the order of L.P.R., passed by the respondents. In this set of facts, the finding of his most respectable Chairman of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in Sheikh Rauf, Driver Loco Shed Pakistan Railways, Multan v. D.S.P., Railways Multan, Appeal No. A05181 Punjab (copy attached with) shall apply, justifying the petitioners case as prayed for.

4. There is nothing on respondents part on this front to hold otherwise.

5. The respondents have taken certain other pleas which I must discuss here. Their first plea is that petitioner is estopped by his conduct. This plea in my view in the light of findings on merit discussed above has no force. He could withdraw his application, therefore, he cannot be estopped.

6. Next, the respondents say that petitioner is no more employee of the establishment, therefore, he does not fall in the definition of a worker to move this Court. This objection is equally not valid for the simple reason that order to send him on L. P. R., was not lawful. Being unlawful this order is to be ignored. It will be considered as non‑existent In this situation, the petitioner will remain an employee of the respondents.

7. The respondents' third plea is that petitioner does not fall in the definition of a worker as given by the I. R.O., 1969. I am sorry to say that again the respondents are not right. While appearing as P.W.1 the petitioner has given no account of his duty. His narration of his duty shows him a worker. In rebuttal there is nothing.

8. Lastly is the objection that no valid grievance notice has been served on the respondents. To meet this objection the petitioner has put forward the copy of the grievance notice as Exh.P.3. Its perusal discloses no flaw in it. Accordingly it is quite valid.

9. The net result of this discussion makes the application quite successful which, accordingly is hereby accepted as prayed for with cost. The petitioner will refund the dues if received by him on account of the impugned order.

A.E. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.