Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 25A and 38 were refused to promote a high-ranking candidate, and his junior promoted applicant was not allowed to sit in the election, unless otherwise qualified by the Labor Court. It is understood that the applicant has been promoted from the date of his junior development. , Sustained by the Appellate Tribunal
Appeal No. LHR‑694 of 1980/Pb., decided on 30th November, 1982.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Promotion to higher rank ‑‑ Petitioner ignored and his junior promoted‑Petitioner not allowed to sit in selection though otherwise eligible‑Order of Labour Court that petitioner be deemed to have been promoted from date his junior was promoted, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 21st November 1982. .
JUDGEMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 17th of August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the appellant was directed to treat the respondent to have been. promoted w. e. f. 15‑1‑1980.and to deem him senior to Nawaz Ali Shah in the category of A. W. M. Back benefits were not allowed to the respondent. Nawaz Ali Shah, Foreman, who was junior to the respondent was promoted on 15‑1‑1980 and this gave a cause of grievance to the respondent to bring the grievance petition. During the pendency of the grievance petition, the respondent was promoted on 10th of July, 1980. Since the respondent has been promoted it means that he was fit for promotion. He was, therefore, wrongly ignored on 15‑1‑1980. The learned lower Court rightly directed that he be deemed to have been promoted from 15‑1‑1980 and be deemed senior to Nawaz Ali Shah. No doubt, according to Exh. P‑1 Nawaz Ali Shah was selected by the Selection Committee, but there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent was allowed to sit in the selection, and he was not selected. There is nothing on record to show also that for some reason, the respondent was not eligible to sit in the selection. If he had been removed from service and had not been in service at the time of selection, of course the respondent could not have claimed seniority over Nawaz Ali Shah. Since the respondent was ignored not for any fault o his, the direction given by the learned lower Court that he be treated to have been promoted from 15‑1‑1980 and be treated as senior to Nawaz Ali Shah is just and proper.
2. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
