LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN , Nemo

Muhammad Yahya Khan, was working as Kanungo in the Exemption Branch of Lahore Development Authority when he was proceeded against for having committed misconduct. Vide order dated 26‑1‑1985 he was reverted to the post of Patwari. He challenged this order of the petitioners by filing an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was rejected by the Punjab Labour Court on 21st August, 1991.

2. Aggrieved by this order the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore on 3rd December, 1991.

3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that neither the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were applicable to the workmen in the employment of the petitioners. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has been found to be without any merits by this court in the connected matter namely W.P. 2924 of 1986, wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1.

4. As regards the merits the charge against respondent No. 1 was that although possession of Khasra Nos. 509 and 531 had already been obtained by the Lahore Development Authority in 1975 but the respondents again toot over the possession with a view to benefit certain purchasers who had purchased the land after the year 1975. The defence taken by respondent No. 1 was that as he was not working as Kanungo in the year 1975, he had no knowledge that the possession had been taken over. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge against respondent No. 1 had not been proved especially when taking over possession in the year 1975 had not been entered in the Roznamcha Waqiati. From the present record it cannot be said that these findings of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal are not based upon any evidence or suffer from any legal error so as to attract interference in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court.

In view of the above this petition has no force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./L‑25/L Petition dismissed.