Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-189 of 1984, heard on 1^st November, 1984.

---S.25-A--Grievance petition--Essentially contemplates rights guaranteed 'i or secured by or under any law, award or settlement--Promotion when not a right guaranteed--Cannot be claimed through grievance petition- Workman without promotion performing duties of higher post --Claiming promotion and pay of higher post--No proof that promotion was a right guaranteed to petitioner--Petition, in circumstances, held, plot maintainable.

1983 S C M R 883 and 1982 P L C I (C. S.) 668 held not applicable.

1983 P L C 536 distinguished.

Masood Shaheryar for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 1st November, lq84.

This is an appeal which is presented for admitting it.

2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Masood Shaheryar, Advoc4te.

3. The facts of the petition fried under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 were that the appellant was 43pointed as Helper on 3-2-1966 in Karachi Development Authority and on 1-7-1972, his services were transferred to Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. On 6--2-1982, he was directed by Respondent No.1, ire. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board to perform the duty of charge-man at Pumping Station No.1 and since that date, he is performing the duty as such against the vacant post but has pot been paid the wages or salary attached for that post. The appellant further has admitted that no letter of promotion has been issued by the respondent and consequently, on 12-1-1-1983, the appellant, vide letter, dated 12--11-1983, called upon the respondent to pay difference of wages and for promotion to the post and duty of charge-man. This letter was followed by the reminder dated 30-11-1983, but the respondent neither the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board nor the K.D.A. trove any reply and hence he served a grievance notice on respondent No.2 i.e. the K.D.A.

4. The respondents in their reply statement challenged the maintainability of the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, while they' have admitted that the appellant worked in Grade-11 when his services were transferred to Karachi Water and Sewerage Board on 1-7-1972. He was not promoted when he performed the duties as chargeman. They also submitted that Grade-VII cannot be given to the petitioner, namely, the appellant as in between, there were more senior persons to be considered.

5. Section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 essentially contemplates the rights guaranteed or secured to worker by any law or any award or a settlement. Following is the wording of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969:-

"A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises."

6. In nutshell the grievance petition is moved on the basis of any rights guaranteed or secured to the worker by or under any law or award or settlement for the time being in force. This is to vindicate to his right guaranteed or secured. The learned counsel could not satisfy this Tribunal whether promotion to higher post was a right guaranteed to the worker. In fact, there was no promotion and there was no indication by assigning the work of charge-man that he would be promoted. Considering these facts the grievance petition was dismissed as not maintainable. I may refer to a decision of 1983 S C M R 883. This authority is quoted in support of the case of the appellant. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court was dealing with Civil Servants Act, 1973 and had opined that minimum pay of grade of higher scale may be given to the petitioner who was promoted. This authority is not attracted by the facts of this case. In the case of Supreme Court reported above, the orders were in favour of the petitioner as he was promoted. Similarly I am referred to 1982 P L C (C.S.) 668, which deals with Service Tribunal Act, 1973. These two authorities are distinguishable.

7. The main point in this case is that the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 is filed in respect of a right guaranteed or bestowed by a settlement or award. In the present case we are confronted with two difficulties, the first is that the right was not accruable to the appellant and secondly, he applied to the K.D.A. for the enforcement of his presumed promotion and the K.D.A. was not his employer at the time when the petition was moved. The K.W. and S.B. was the employer and as such he should have moved application to vindicate his right, if any, to the K.W. and S.B. lie was transferred in 1972 and was placed under K.W. and S.B. The learned counsel for the appellant have referred me to 1983 P L C 536. The authority brings out the following grounds for promotion "promotion though not a right but is not at the pleasure of the employer to promote or to refuse the same without reasonable ground normally be done on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness". The above authority is also distinguishable. It has been held by the authority that a promotion is not a right. It has also been held that it should be given on the fitness and seniority of a person. In the instant case the appellant is not the senior person nor he was qualified to be fit.

8. Under these circumstances, I dismiss the appeal 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.