Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 1 HR‑502 of 1982, decided on 10th August, 1983.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition pertaining to promotion‑Claim that respondent was junior but promoted instead of petitioner‑Seniority list showing respondent as senior circulated long before not challen ged‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed as time barred reckoning limitation from date of circulation of seniority list‑Respondent on transfer from other section placed senior to petitioner‑Transfer not challenged‑Plea that seniority could not have been changed without notice‑Plea rejected and unchallenged transfer of respondent in circumstances, held, was a sufficient notice‑Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, r. 610.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant.

Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th August, 1983.

The appeal captioned above ariseses from the decision, dated 28th July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his pro motion as Millwright Mistry was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant is Millwright fitter and respondent No. 3 was bench fitter. Their seniority was separate but the channel of promotion is the same. Respondent No. 3 was senior to the appellant. Respondent No. 3 was transferred along with two others as Millwright fitters in 1966 and as he was senior as bench fitter, he was in the seniority list of Millwright fitters shown as senior to the appellant and was consequently promoted to the post of Millwright Mistry on 15th November, 1979. The appellant challenged the promotion departmentally and when no final reply came, he brought petition under section 25‑A after giving a grievance notice. The learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition as time barred as well as on the ground that the appellant failed to make out any case in his favour.

3 So far as transfer of respondent No. 3 is concerned, no doubt, the petition of the appellant to that extent was time barred. Transfer took place in 1966 but grievance notice was given and grievance petition lodged in 1980. The learned lower Court has rightly said that the appellant got knowledge of the transfer as the transferees had been all along working in his section. A question was put to the appellant why he did not challenge the transfer of respondent No. 3, but his reply was not that he did not know about the transfer. He replied that certain other persons were senior to him, so they had to first challenge the transfer.

4. So far as the seniority list of 1977/1978 is concerned, RW‑1 deposed that they had been circulated. The appellant did not challenge this deposition in cross‑examination. Since the circulation of the seniority list stands proved, the grievance notice and the grievance petition of 1980 have been rightly declared by the learned lower Court as time‑barred. No doubt, the grievance petition so far as it challenged the promotion of respondent No. 3 was not time‑barred, as the appellant had made repre sentation admitted in reply Exh. P‑1 but it was not decided. He sent another application Exh. P‑2 on 24th August, 1980 admitted in Exh. P‑3 but it was not replied. But the difficulty for the appellant is that long before respondent No. 3 was promoted and the appellant challenged the promotion, the seniority list had become final for not having been challen ged. Since respondent No. 3 had become finally senior, his promotion could not be successfully challenged. Apart from it, respondent No. 3 and the appellant both of them were considered for promotion as deposed by RW‑1 but the appellant was not considered fit for promotion. Deposition of RW‑1 on the point was not challenged in cross‑examination.

5. The learned representative of the appellant has made reference to rule 610 Personnel Manur which provides that before changing the senior ity of a person, notice should be given to him. But unchallenged transfer of respondent No. 3 was a sufficient notice to the appellant in 1966. He knew that respondent No. 3 was senior to him and thus after transfer would rank senior to him in the Millwright section as well but he slept A over the matter and did not challenge it within time. The appellant, there fore, appears to have no case for interference in the decision of the learned lower Court.

6. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismissed the same.

A. E. Appeal 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.