Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR‑631 and 632 of 1982, heard on 6tb March, 1983.

Industrial dispute‑---

--‑‑Promotion‑Selection for promotion' ‑Prerogative o, employer ‑‑ Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere unless in making selection any rule or settlement violated‑Fitness " can appropriately be determined only by competent authority where promotion required to be made under rule or practice on basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness- Mere fact that workman was temporarily allowed to perform duties of higher post in exigencies of work‑Does not entitle him to claim said post or to continue to work on such post‑Bus conductor temporarily asked to work as Traffic Assistant‑Claim to have been promoted but no such promotion order passed‑Grievance petition against alleged reversion as bus conductor, in circumstances, held, not maintainable‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Muttaqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind P L D 1978 .Kar. 703 rel.

Muhammad Yousuj Khan for Appellants

Date of bearing : 6th March, 1983.

These 2 appeals are both directed against the decision of the learned 1st Labour Court, given on 25th November, 1982, dismissing the separate grievance petitions preferred by the appellants challenging the orders of their reversion from the posts of Traffic Assistants to that of conductors in the respondent‑Organization.

2. It is the case of appellant Iqbal Shah that he was working as Traffic Assistant since 13th April, 1981 but from 20th December, 1981 the Traffic Inspector refused to assign him the duty of Traffic Assistant without any cause or valid reason. Similarly, the cases of appellant, Muhammad Iqbal is that 1,1;: worked as 'Traffic Assistant in the respondent -Organization from 14th May, 1981 to 10th January, 1982, but from 11th January, 1982 onwards he was refused the duties of Traffic Assistant.

3. It is an admitted position that both the appellants were appointed as bus conductors in the respondent‑Organization. No orders promoting them to the rank of Traffic Assistant has been produced by them. Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants was given 2 adjourn ments, at his request, to produce copies of the orders or the nothings promo ting the appellants to the rank of Traffic Assistant but he was unable to produce any such order or document. Both in the reply statement as well as in the affidavit of the respondent's witness, Ali Ahmed the District Managera, of the K. T. C., it is specifically denied that the appellants were appointed"' as or promoted to the rank of Traffic Assistant. Mr. Yousuf Khan, however, relied upon the admission made by the District Manager, Ali Ahmed, in his cross‑examination to the effect that he had passed written orders that the appellants be allowed to perform temporarily the duties of Traffic Assistant. The mere fact that the appellants were temporarily allowed to perform the duties of Traffic Assistant does not entitle them to claim the said post or to continue to work in such posts. The exigencies of work in an establishment may require that a worker of one category may perform temporarily the functions of a worker in a higher category,., but this circumstance by itself would not entitle the worker in the lower category to claim the post in the higher category. Selection of a person for promotion is the prerogative of the employer and unless in the making of the selection any rules applicable to the establishment or any provision of a settlement in force between the establishment and the collective bargaining agent therein is violated, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. Even where there is a rule or practice that promotion is to ‑ be made on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness, the fitness can appropriately be determined only by the competent authority, as held in the case of Muttaqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind (P L D 1978 Kar. 703). It has no been shown that in the instant case the 2 appellants have a right under any law, award or settlement to be promoted to the post of Traffic Assistant or to hold that post. As such, they are not entitled to prefer and maintain grievance petitions against their alleged reversion to their substantive post, as bus conductors. I accordingly dismiss the 2 appeals in limine.

A. E. Appeals dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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