Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AYUB VS Respondent: PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: MUHAMMAD AYUB vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Case No.: Appeals Nos, LHR-722 and LHR-701 of 1979 Date of Judgment:1982-05-29 Reported As: 1985 PLC 868 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' 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 C.Hiragh 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 conductor 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
---
## Page 2
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.