Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑499 of 1983, decided on 6^th August, 1984.

‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Decision as to fitness for promotion‑‑Prerogative of employer‑‑No adverse material brought against employee can be used without having been informed of same‑‑Bank employee‑‑Ignored for promotion on grounds of adverse reports in A.C.Rs.‑‑No proof that employee informed of such reports enabling him to have represented for their expunetion‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal directing respondent Bank to re‑consider case of appellant (employee)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

1983 P L C 206; 1982 P L C 1; 1981 P L C 494; 1983 P L C 681; 1983 ‑PLC 372 and 1972 S C M R 127 distinguished.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.

Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29th July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 23‑7‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion as Assistant Manager.

2. On 13‑5‑1980 the juniors of the appellant were promoted over his head vide seniority list Exh.P.1. The ground on which the appellant was not recommended by the departmental promotion committee is that his two A.C.Rs. Exhs. R.1 and R.4 were not satisfactory and that on account of remaining absent for one day without leave he was reprimanded. There is no evidence that the A . C . Rs. were duly conveyed to the appellant. Only those A . C . Rs. can be used which have been conveyed to the employee concerned. The appellant categorically said that Exhs. R.1 and R.4 were never conveyed to him. R.W.1 did not say that A.C.Rs. were conveyed. No copy of letter was produced to show that the appellant was informed about the adverse remarks. No postal or other receipt of any such letter is on the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited number of authorities such as 1983 P L C 206; 1982 P L C 1; 1981 P L C 494; 1983 P L C 681; 1983 PLC 372 and 1972 S C M R 127. There is no dispute about this that in Banks promotion is given on the basis of length of service and good performance but it has not been held in any of the above mentioned rulings that conveying of adverse remarks is not necessary. If the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.Rs. are duly conveyed, the employee concerned has an opportunity to represent to the higher authorities for their expunction. Since it has not been proved that the remarks recorded against the appellant in the A.C.Rs. were convey to him, he being ignorant of them could not move for their expunction, H and thus was prejudiced when they were used against him to his detriment. It is no doubt the prerogative of the employer to decide whether an employee is fit for promotion but no adverse material brought against can be used without having been informed.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is directed to re‑consider the case of the appellant for promotion.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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