Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS Respondent: DISTRICT MANAGER
1988 P L C 550
1988 P L C 550
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Versus
DISTRICT MANAGER and another
Appeal No.LHR‑11 of 1987 decided on 4th March, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38( 3‑A )‑‑Promotion‑‑ Appellant worker claiming promotion prior to promotion of his fellow worker, respondent No.2, on ground of seniority‑‑Respondent No.2 was reverted during pendency of petition of appellant by way of awarding punishment‑‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition of appellant as having become infructuous Held view taken by Labour Court was not correct‑‑Since main prayer of appellant was for promotion and he asked for reversion of respondent No.2 claiming seniority over him and for reason that at time when he moved petition no other vacancy existed, Labour Court was to consider case of appellant to arrive at a conclusion whether he had a right to ask for a direction that he be considered for promotion‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside and case remanded for decision on merits.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.
Shafiqul Islam for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the order dated 19‑1‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion has been dismissed as having become infructuous.
2.Waheed Hussain Shah, respondent No.2 was promoted and the appellant claiming to be senior from him brought grievance petition with the prayer that respondent Na.2 be reverted and he (the appellant) be promoted. In the pendency of the grievance petition respondent No.2 was reverted by way of awarding punishment and for this reason the learned lower Court has held that the grievance petition of the appellant has become infructuous. The view taken by the learned lower Court is not correct. The main prayer of the appellant was for promotion. He asked for the reversion of Waheed Hussain Shah. respondent No.2 claiming seniority over him and for the reason that at the time he moved the application no other vacancy may be existing. The learned lower Court has still to consider the case of the appellant to arrive at a conclusion whether he has a right to ask for a direction that he be considered for promotion. His petition, therefore, has not become infructuous. No doubt, promotion is not a right but a worker can ask for a direction that he be considered for promotion‑
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision the case is remanded for decision on merits.
M.Y.H./338/Lb.P Appeal accepted.