Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑722 and LHR‑701 of 1979, decided on 30th May 1982.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Petition challenging promotion on ground that promoted worker was transferred to another establishment at him own request and was to be ranked junior to persons serving in that establishment in same cadre‑Petition accepted and promotion held illegal with direction to employer to reconsider question of promotion and pro mote petitioner if all his seniors were found to be unfit for promotion ‑ Order impugned by appellant‑worker as well as by employer ‑ Held : Trial Court was correct in not giving direction to respondent employer to promote appellant because there were persons senior to appellant‑Promotion in always based upon seniority‑cum‑suitability ‑ Sole function of employer to see if an incumbent is fit for promotion‑Appeals dismissed.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 11th May, 1982.

The two appeals captioned above arises from the decision, dated 9th October, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Ayub was accepted, the promotion of Chiragh Din was declared as illegal and the P. U. T. C. directed to reconsider the question of promotion and promoted Muhammad Ayub if all his 27 seniors are found to be unfit for promotion. Since the two appeals arise from the same impugned decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which Muhammad Ayub will be described as the appellant while the P.U.T.C. as the respondent.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned decision on the ground that no direction to promote him was given and the P. U. T. C. has challenged the order, whereby the promotion of Chiragh Din was declared to be illegal.

3. The case of the appellant is that Chiragh Din when he was con ductor in Ichhra Depot was transferred from the said depot on his own request to the Kot Lakhpat Depot, where the appellant was employed. I agree with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge in his judgment that if an employee is transferred to another establishment at his own request, he is to be ranked junior to all the persons who are already serving in that establishment in the same cadre. Since Chiragh Din was transferred on his own request to Kot Lakhpat Depot, he could not claim seniority over the appellant. Not only the appellant but 27 other persons also were senior to Chiragh Din in Kot Lakhpat Depot as Chiragh Din was to be placed junior to them. The learned trial Judge was correct in not giving direction to the respondent to promote the appellant, because there were 27 persons senior to the appellant. Promotion is always based upon seniority‑cum‑suitability. It is the sole function of the employer to see if an incumbent is fit for promotion. The respondent had no ground to bring the appeal, because as mentioned above Chiragh Din was rightly declared as junior as he was transferred on his own request.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the two appeals, which are dismissed.

M. I.

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.