Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑394 of 1984, decided on 15th August, 1984.

‑‑‑Promotion ‑‑Railway employee‑‑Claiming promotion to post of Work Mistry‑‑Non‑selection post‑‑Promotion criteria seniority‑cum‑fitness‑ Senior not considered while promoting junior‑‑Senior, in circumstances, held, prejudiced and order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition against non‑promotion upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. .25‑A & 38(3).

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 8th August, 1984.

The decision, dated 15‑5‑1984 recorded .by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Shah, respondent No.2 for his promotion was accepted.

2. The facts are that the appellant and Muhammad Shah, respondent No‑2 were previously working under I.O.W‑III and according to the joint seniority list, Muhammad Shah was senior to the appellant. This fact is admitted by the appellant as well as by R.W. 2. Afterwards the category to which respondent No.2 belonged, was brought under the Headquarters but it would not change the position. This was not done the request of Muhammad Shah, respondent No.2, so he would maintain his seniority. The promotion of the appellant was, therefore, bad in law. It has been argued that respondent No.2 was originally a gang‑mate and the appellant was Mali Mate, therefore, respondent No.2 could not challenge the promotion of the appellant. R.W.2 said that from both categories incumbents are promoted as Work Mistry. So, it makes no difference if respondent No.2, belongs to a category different from the one to which the appellant originally belonged.

3. The post of work mistry not being a selection post, the criteria of promotion would be seniority‑cum‑fitness. Since respondent No.2 was not considered when the appellant was promoted, the forma) was prejudiced. The decision of the learned lower Court, therefore, is just and proper and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, for which interference may be considered necessary. As a result the appeal is 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.