Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LIIR‑842 of 1979/Pb., decided on 31st October, 1981.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37 ‑ Grievance petition before Labour Court Maintainable to enforce any guaranteed right‑Promotion‑Normally to be made on basis of 'seniority‑cum‑fitness‑Question of seniority Can be decided by Court‑Fitness not within jurisdiction of Court and always to be decided by management/competent departmental authority‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition and directing promotion of petitioner, held, not justified and set aside by Appellate Tribunal.

Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 27th October, 1581.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 6‑11‑1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to‑ be promoted as Assistant Foreman with effect from 8‑5‑1975 with back benefits.

2. The respondent was a Moulder and on the retirement of one Siraj Din, Assistant Foreman, was verbally asked by the Works Manager to look after the duties of Assistant Foreman. Since then he is discharging those duties but he was not regularly promoted. The reason given is that the Assistant Foreman has to do some writing work also, but the respondent, being illiterate, is not fit for the job. Admittedly, Siraj Din was also illiterate but had been promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman and from that post he retired. The question to be considered is whether the respondent gained any right by merely looking after the work of the post of Assistant Foreman under a verbal order. The respondent could not show that the Works Manager under whose verbal order he was working as Assistant Foreman, was competent and authorised to promote him or to ask him to work as Assistant Foreman. According to the appellants, Superintending Engineer is competent to promote a Moulder to the post of Assistant Foreman. This is true that the previous Assistant Foreman namely Siraj Din was also illiterate, but this could not give any right to the respondent to claim promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman.

Needless to say that promotion can be made on the ground of seniority -cum‑fitness. Only the employer has the right to decide whether a particular incumbent is fit for promotion or not. The question of seniority of course can be decided by the Court, but the question of fitness is not within the jurisdiction of the Court and is always to be decided by the competent departmental authority. Mere verbal order of an officer, who is not com petent to order promotion, did not give any right to the respondent and it cannot be said that he had any guaranteed right, for which he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Labour Court, there fore, was not justified in directing the promotion of the respondent to the

post of Assistant Foreman. It is up to the department to decide whether he is or is not fit for being promoted.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent made under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.