Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑570 of 1984, decided on 28th November, 1984.

‑‑Pay‑Merely working on a post‑Not a sufficient ground to claim pay of such post unless incumbent promoted property and legally by competent authority‑Foreman on verbal asking of Sub‑Divisional Officer working as Sub‑Engineer‑Service Rules providing no pro motion and post of Sub‑Engineer to be filled only by direct appointment‑Claim for pay of post of Sub‑Engineer, in circum stances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of .1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Anwar Ali Chaudhary for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 19th November, 1984.

The titled appeal arises from the decision dated 23rd September, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for direction to promote him with back benefits to the post of Sub‑Engineer, was dismissed.

2. The appellant is a Foreman. By a verbal order of an S.D.O. be started working as Sub‑Engineer. He brought an application under section 25‑A for being promoted as Sub‑Engineer: It was accepted and it was ordered that the appellant may be considered for promotion to the said post. It was also ordered that he may continue to work as Sub-Engineer. Since he was not promoted. He brought second grievance petition claiming promotion and the pay of the post of Sub‑Engineer on the‑ ground that he was working as such under the orders of the Labour Court. The learned lower Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that since the respondents have statutory rules of service (Exh. P. (9) and the department is being run by the Provincial Government under section 1 (4) (c) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance is not applicable and that as the rules referred to above do not provide promotion to the post of Sub‑Engineer, the appellant had no guaranteed right.

3. It has been argued that since the appellant is working as Sub -Engineer, he is entitled to the pay of that post. Merely working on a pus cannot be a ground to claim pay of the said post unless the incumbent has been properly and legally promoted on the post by a competent authority. The S.D.O. has no power to appoint or promote the appellant as Sub -Engineer. According to Rules of the respondent, a vacancy in the post of Sub‑Engineer can be filled in by direct appointment only. There is no provision of promotion. So the Rules do not guarantee any right of pro motion to the appellant. Since he was not validly appointed on the post he cannot claim pay of the said post if he had been appointed in the officiating capacity by a competent authority he could have claimed allow ance but since he was not appointed as such, he is not entitled to even allowance of 121 per cent.

4. So far as the previous order of the learned lower Court is concern ed, the appellant was not directed to be appointed or promoted as Sub‑Engineer, but was only asked to be considered for promotion and allowed to continue to work as Sub‑Engineer. Since there is no rule of promotion, the appellant has rightly been not considered for promotion. Under the order of the Court the appellant continued to work in the same manner as he was doing before the said order. As the appellant was not working under any valid order, the Court's direction did not in any manner improve his status. So his petition was rightly dismissed.

5. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

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.