Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑269, 243 and 244 of 1983, decided on 24th April,

1984.

---Rr. 3(c) & 401 and Appendix‑I‑Promotion‑Can be made on recommendation of selection committee consisting of three officers‑Promotion of skilled workers in Grade‑5 to post of inspecting Mistri‑Trade test taken by committee consisting of two officers only‑Test thus taken, in circumstances, held, of no effect and Labour Court justified in setting aside result of such test directing respondent (Railways) to promote petitioners (employees) according to rule‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

S. Intisar Hussain for Appellants.

S. A. Latif for Respondents.

Sardar Muhammad Tufail for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Date of hearing : 18th April, 1984.

The three appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 5th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of Saghir Baig, respondent, was accepted and the Railways was directed to hold the selection accord ing to rules. As all the three appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Saghir Ahmad, Ibn‑e‑Hasan and Kabir Hussain are skilled workers in Grade No. 5. To fill in the vacancy of the post of Inspecting Mistri (Production), trade test was taken as a result of which Ibn‑e -Hasan and Kabir Hussain were selected but Saghir Baig failed. The stand of Saghir Baig was that he was not called, so be could not take part in the , test, whereas the stand of all the three appellants is that Saghir Baig was called and be took part in the test but failed. The con tention of Saghir Baig that be was not called and that he could not participate in the test, is wrong. From Exh. R‑I it is evident that he did take part in the test. His name figures in it and against his name it is mentioned that he failed. However, this finding of the learned lower Court is correct that no selection committee was formed according to rules. In Appendix‑I of Personnel Manual 'there is provision and method of constituting a selection committee. Rule 3(c) is relevant to this case. Three officers or the members out of whom the senior officer has to act as Chairman. But the committee that held the test consisted of two officers only. R. W. 1 candidly admitted that no Selection Com mittee was formed. According to Rule 401, promotion can be made on the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee. Since no' such committee was formed, the test taken was not legal and thus of no effect. Where there is method of making promotion, only in that legal mariner test could be held and promote ion made. The learned lower Court was thus justified in setting aside the result declared by the appel lant and rightly directed the Railways to promote its employees according to rules.

3. As a result all the three appeals fail and are dismissed.

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.