Promotion Fitness will be decided through a management settlement, which will provide development on the principles of the Senior Fitness Promotion Committee between collective bargaining agents and management, which considers qualifications through employment and employment. Is not found to be suitable for promotion, dismissing the application for a complaint against non-promotion, in the circumstances, denied by the Appellate Tribunal and Intervention, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Sections 25A and 37
1983 P L C 891
[Labour Appellate Tribunal
Sind
].
Before Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
ABDUL JALIL KHAN AND ANOTHER
versus
KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Appeals Nos. KAR-380 and 381 of 1982, heard on 3rd October, 1982.
Industrial dispute---
----Promotion-Fitness-To be judged by management-Settlement ,between collective bargaining agent and management providing for promotion on principle of seniority-cum-fitness Promotion Committee set up by management considering merits and not finding workman fit for promotion-Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against non-promotion, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal and interference refused-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A. & 37.
Muttaqui Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind P L D 1978 Kar. 703 rel.
S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. .
Date of hearing : 3rd October, 1982.
ORDER
ORDER These 2 appeals are directed against the decision of the learned IVth Labour Court, given on 19-8-1982, dismissing the separate grievance petitions filed by the appellants challenging the action of the respondent Corporation in promoting other officials. of the respondent Corporation in preference to them to the posts of Station Superintendent.
2. Both the appellants have been working in the respondent Corpora tion as Inspectors since the last 13 years ; appellant Jalil Than since 10-6-1969 Muhammad Zakaria since l i-i-1969. Their next promotion is to the post of Station Superintendent. By the settlement arrived at on 6-11-1978 between the respondent Corporation and. the C. B. A. therein,. promotion to the next higher rank in the. respondent Corporation is to be made on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness It appears that the respon dent Corporation has set up a selection committee for assessing the suitability of eligible persons f6r promotion and for this purpose they hold periodic interviews: On 14-2-1981, the selection/promotion committee interviewed 32 Inspectors. 3, namely, Ghulam Hussain Afridi, Malik Feroz and M. Fakhren, were recommended for .promotion and duly promoted, while the remaining 29 were not found fit for promotions. Some of the Inspectors who had not been recommended for promotion and had not been found fit for promotion by the Promotion Committee filed separate grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court. The grievance petition of 3 such Inspectors, namely, Sardar Hussain, Aziz Jafry and Khurshid Ahmed, were dismissed by the learned Labour Court by its decision given on. 24-4-1982. Their appeals against the said decision were dismissed by this Tribunal by its detailed order, dated 25-8-1982: In dismissing their appeals, this Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the. Karachi High Court reported as Muttaqui Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind (1) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Latif v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. (P L D 1978 Kar.703).
3. The 2 appellants are 2 of the Inspectors who were interviewed by the promotion committee on 14.2-1981, but were not found fit for promotion. Their cases are, therefore, identical to those of Sardar Hussain, Aziz Jafry and Khurshid Ahmad whose appeals were dismissed by this Tribunal by its order, dated 25-8-1982. In that case I have held that in making promotion to the post of Station Superintendent, both seniority and fitness had to be taken into consideration and fitness for promotion is to be judged by the A Management.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would dismiss both these appeals in limine.
Appeal dismissed.
