Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. LHR‑378 of 1983, decided on 15th April, 1984.
‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Required to be made on basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness‑ Joint seniority of various categories of workers being maintained‑‑Claim for promotion on basis of particular category. in circumstances, held, rightly not entertained and turn of petitioner having not yet reached according to joint seniority grievance petition, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance ‑XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Masroor Mirza for Appellant.
S. Intisar Hussain for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th April, 1984.
The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 30‑5‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion.
2. The appellant is a JAIP Machinist. He claims to be promoted of Mistry Machinist. According to the seniority list Exhs. R‑1/P‑14, he is at No.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant belongs to the machinist category and has a right to be promoted to the post of Mistry Machinist and the others who belong to electrical category are not eligible. This argument has no force. Since seniority is joint, promotion is to be made according to it. The persons shown senior to the appellant in the said seniority list, are to be promoted first. Learned counsel has made reference to Eith.P‑4 but this is not a seniority list but is a recommendation roll of the employees, who were according to the seniority‑cum‑fitness, recommended for promotion.
3. Application for additional evidence has been given to show that the appellant is JAIP Machinist but the same is not relevant as according to the seniority list, promotion is to be made not only from the JAIP Machinist but from other categories also. The said document, therefore, is not required for the decision of this appeal. The application is thus rejected. As the turn of the appellant has not yet reached according to the seniority list Exhs. R‑1/P‑14, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer