Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑96 of 1985, decided on 24th December, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Petitioner ignored for promotion as not found fit and not recommended by Promotion Committee due to adverse remarks in Character Roll already communicated to petitioner‑ Petition claiming promotion, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1985.
The decision, dated 22‑1‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion has been dismissed.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that although he is admittedly senior to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 yet the latters have been promoted and he (the appellant) has been ignored. The ground on which the appellant was ignored is that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend him for promotion as there were adverse remarks against him in 1975 and 1979 (Exhs. R‑1 and 2.). They show that the adverse remarks were duly conveyed to him and the appellant admits that he had moved for the expunction of the adverse remarks but his representation was rejected. In view of the fact that there were adverse remarks in his ACRs, he was rightly not promoted. His grievance petition, therefore, was rightly dismissed. However, he can be considered for promotion in future if he gets good reports. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer