The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 37 Promotion Senior Worker cannot be deprived of development without giving any reason for his neglect that the applicant / applicant has been punished multiple times, therefore, the selection committee has promoted it. Not considered suitable for. Documents placed before the Labor Court in which it appears that he was ever punished and punished, in these cases, with no power, excluding the request for a Labor Court order complaint, Under the circumstances, the Labor Appellate Tribunal and the administration directed the matter to be reconsidered. Pass the appropriate order stating the applicant / applicant's reasons
Appeals Nos. SG-627 to 629 of 1981 /Pb. decided on 30th January, 983.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ----- Ss. 25-A & 37 - Promotion - Senior workman cannot be deprived of promotion without giving any reasons for ignoring him-Arguments before Labour Court that petitioner/appellant had been punished several times, therefore, Selection Committee did not consider him suitable for promotion-No documents placed before Labour Court indicating that he was ever punished and punishment was communicated to him-Arguments, in circumstances, held, without force-Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal and Management directed to re-consider case of petitioner/appellant and pass proper order giving reasons.
Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Appellants.
Muhammad Aslam for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1983.
JUDGEMENT The three appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 27th February, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed. As points in all the appeals are common, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The appellants in their grievance petitions challenged the promo tions of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Senior Clerks. Younas and Rehmat ullah, appellants, were appointed on 17th September, 1975 and Mukhtar Ahmad, appellant, on 27th April, 1976. Nisar Ahmad, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Junior Clerk on 11th October, 1975 at Lahore P. R. T. B. and transferred to P. U. T. C., Sargodha on 26th April, 1978. Altaf Hussain, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Junior Clerk at Sargodha on 10th June, 1979. Nisar Ahmad stated in his statement that he yeas appointed as Junior Clerk in P. U. T. C. and was transferred to P. R. T. B. On his request. Moreover, P. U. T. C. is quite different establishment from P. R. T. B., therefore, all the employees of P. R. T. B. were in the same category and on the date on which Nisar Abriiad was transferred they were senior to him. Since all the three appellants were appointed as Junior Clerks before Nisar Ahmad and Rehmaullah, they were senior to them. In promotion order of Nisar Ahmad and Altaf Hussain nothing is mentioned why the appellants were ignored. Darned counsel for; the respon dents has argued that the appellants had been punished several times, therefore, the selection committee did not consider them suitable, for promo tion. He has also said that the rule of promotion in P. R. T. B. is seniority-cum-fitness. Since no document has been placed on the file of the lower Court, that the appellants were ever punished and the punishment was communicated to them, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel is without force. Without giving any reason for ignoring the appellants, they could not be deprived.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the three appeals and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned lower Court, direct the Management to reconsider the case of the appellants and pass proper orders giving reasons.
A.E. Appeal accepted.
