Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed QAISAR ABBAS RIZVI VS Respondent: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN JUDGMENT
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title:Syed QAISAR ABBAS RIZVI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1984 PLC 1528 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment JUDGMENT ' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 29th March, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for promotion. 2. The appellant has been retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. He after his retirement brought grievance petition for a direction to promote him with effect from 4th February, 1983 with back benefits of promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of R.W. 1 who stated that the post of Superintendent was a selection post but according to practice never any selection was made. Learned counsel argues that as for promotion the case was not to go to the selection committee and as the seniority of the appellant is not disputed, he is entitled to be promoted. Needless to say that for promotion a selection post best of the lot is to be picked up and to a non-selection post promotion is made according to seniority-cum-fitness. It is the right of the employer to decide if a particular person is or is not fit for promotion. TS## ## Thus, promotion is not a right and no question of violation of an guaranteed right arises. The Courts can only issue direction that an employee may be considered for promotion but no direction to definitely promote the appellant can be given. Since the appellant is no longer in service, no direction to Econsider him for promotion can be issued. The grievance petition is misconceived and was rightly dismissed. 3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. 1984 PLC 1529 [Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
---
## Page 2
TALIB HUSSAIN versus' WEST PAKISTAN CO-OP., LAHORE Appeal No, LHR-168 of 1984/Pb., decided on 28th May, 1984, (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 25-A-Workman-Employment during period of dismissal or termination -Claim of back benefits-Setting off of claim on reinstatement- Workman, held, could not, remain in service of two employers at one and same time and on reinstatement after dismissal or termination, will have to show that during such period he remained unemployed and in case he was employed elsewhere, previous employer would be entitled to claim set off against his claim of back benefits. [p. 1530]A (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- - - S. 25-A -Workman -Reinstatement - Employment during dismissal or termination-Claim of back benefits-Primarily duty of workman to show that during such time he remained employed elsewhere or remained unemployed. [p. 1530]B Appellant in person. Sardar Muhammad, A. 0. For Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd May, 1984. JUDGMENT ' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated llth March, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore to the extent it did not allow back benefits to the appellant. 2. The allegation against the appellant was of misconduct. The learned lower Court has directed his reinstatement for the reason that the enquiry held against the appellant was improper and defective. The ground for declaring the enquiry as improper is that no evidence of any prosecution witness or defence witness was recorded. Back benefits have not been allowed to the appellant for the reason that he did not state that he remained unemployed during the period of dismissal. In reality his statement made before the learned lower Court is silent on the point. An employee cannot at one and the same time remain in service of two employers. Therefore, if a dismissed or terminated person claims back benefits, be has to show that during the period of dismissal or termination, as the case may be, he remained unemployed. If he had got employment elsewhere the previous employer is entitled to claim set off on his reinstatement. Since the employer has no source to know if his dismissed employee had remained employed elsewhere, the employee has to claim and show that he remained unemployed. If he has remained unemployed, he has to disclose the particulars of the employer and of the earnings, so that the set off may be claimed by the party against whom back benefits have been claimed. 3. As a result, the appeal, having no force, is dismissed.