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.FD‑112 of 1985, decided on 22nd December, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 23‑ B (6), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Criteria‑‑Seniority‑cum -fitness‑‑Consent of Representatives of workers to be taken while framing policy about promotion ‑and not in cases off promotions of individual workers‑‑Petitioners ignored for promotion after consideration on merits‑‑Plea that consent of Representatives of workers not obtained was appealed and grievance petition claiming promotion, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed.
Munawar Ahmed Javed for Appellants.
Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th December, 1985.
The decision, dated 28‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for their promotion to the post of Assistant Overman was dismissed.
2. The appellants, except Nazar Din, are Mining Sardars. Their grievance was that their juniors were promoted and they were ignored. Nazar Din too was ignored and thereafter retired from service. According to the seniority list Ex.P.18, the appellants no doubt are senior to respondents Nos.2 to 4 but it is the function of the employer to decide who is fit for promotion. Needless to say that promotion is given not only on the basis of seniority but fitness is also to be considered Exh.R.2 shows that a committee was formed and it considered the merits of every candidate. The appellants secured less marks than respondents Nos.2 to 4. It is thus clear that the appellants were duly considered for promotion but were not considered fit, so their juniors were promoted.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that while promoting respondents Nos.2 to 4 and ignoring the appellants, section 23‑8 (6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was violated. This section deals with the question of workers' participation in the management. It requires that 50 representatives will be elected or nominated from the workers where the number of employees in a factory is 50 or more. Firstly, there is no evidence that the number of employees is 50. Other thing is that there is no evidence if the C.B.A., if any, or the workers have elected or nominated representatives to participate in the management. If no such election or nomination has been, so far made, no question arises that the workers' representatives were not consented before promoting respondents Nos.2 to 4. Apart from it, according to subsection (6), the advice of the workers' representative is to be taken while framing service rules and laying down policy about promotions. There is no provision that for the promotion of every individual the workers' representatives should be consulted. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel in this respect is untenable. The learned lower Court thus rightly dismissed the grievance petition.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and 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