1992 PLC 531 (PLP)
ABDUL SALAM Versus RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others
| Citation | 1992 PLC 531 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL SALAM Versus RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Industrial dispute, (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLC 531 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Industrial dispute, (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLC 531 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLC 531 (PLP) (ABDUL SALAM Versus RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellant.
- Karam Chand Kingrani for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
- Bashir Ahmed Awan for Respondent No. 4.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Only ground under which grievance petition was competent, was that somebody had been denied his right under law, award or settlement
Promotion could not be claimed by employee as of right, thus contention of employee that though he was senior his claims had been ignored and a junior had superseded him, was not fit to be considered in a grievance petition
Petition not warranted by law thus was rightly dismissed by Labour Court being not competent.
Judgment & Decree
Promotion could not be claimed as of right. Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellant. Karam Chand Kingrani for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and
3. Bashir Ahmed Awan for Respondent No.
4. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1992. The appellant was working with the Rice Export Corporation and was posted at Pakistan National Produce Co., Shaheed Allah Bux, Shikarpur. An occasion arose for promotion and he was not considered when somebody junior to him was promoted in the position of Mechanical Supervisor. The appellant had sent the due notice and not being satisfied with the reply presented an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
2. Some of the respondents had remained ex parte but there was written statement from one of them. The petition came to be dismissed by the Labour Court and an appeal has been preferred here.
3. The short point in this petition is whether it was open to the appellant to present a petition before the Labour Court on the ground that though he was senior his claims had been ignored and juniors had superseded him.
4. I am afraid the only ground under which a petition is competent under section 25-A, I.R.O. is if somebody has been denied his right under the law, an award or settlement. That is not the situation here. To urge that the person who has been preferred over him was not fit enough to be considered and it was a case of nepotism is not enough. Promotion cannot be claimed as of right. The whole effort was misconceived. The petition was not warranted in law and had been properly dismissed by the Labour Court. H.B.T./2018/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.