1986 PLP 1070 (PLC(CS))
REHMAT ULLAH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1070 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | REHMAT ULLAH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1070 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1070 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1070 (PLC(CS)) (REHMAT ULLAH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asmat Kamal for Petitioner.
- Syed Muhammad Naqi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Promotion‑‑Not a right‑‑Consideration for promotion‑‑A right of employee if vacancy exists‑‑Labour Court while accepting grievance petition awarding reinstatement with back benefits relating to promotion and grade of petitioner‑‑Petitioner after reinstatement not promoted‑ Seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against employer on grounds of non‑promotion in compliance with order of Labour Court‑‑No suggestion that vacancy existed and some junior promoted‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, should first apply to employer for being considered for promotion $ a vacancy arises and if not considered may have a grievance but if considered and wrongly found unfit he may challenge such decision but no contempt petition would lie‑‑Contempt proceedings‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(5).
Judgment & Decree
Petition No. LHR‑216 of 1984, decided on 8th December, 1984. Promotion‑‑Not a right‑‑Consideration for promotion‑‑A right of employee if vacancy exists‑‑Labour Court while accepting grievance petition awarding reinstatement with back benefits relating to promotion and grade of petitioner‑‑Petitioner after reinstatement not promoted‑ Seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against employer on grounds of non‑promotion in compliance with order of Labour Court‑‑No suggestion that vacancy existed and some junior promoted‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, should first apply to employer for being considered for promotion $ a vacancy arises and if not considered may have a grievance but if considered and wrongly found unfit he may challenge such decision but no contempt petition would lie‑‑Contempt proceedings‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(5). Asmat Kamal for Petitioner. Syed Muhammad Naqi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984. This is a petition under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for proceeding against the respondents for Contempt of Court. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back benefits relating to his promotion and grades etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been promoted and thus the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 2‑10‑1978 has not been complied with. It is not urged in the petition that a vacancy has arisen and an employee junior to him has been promoted. Promotion is not a right. The employees have only this right that they be considered for promotion. If there is a vacancy, the petitioner should first apply to the respondents for being considered for promotion and in case he is not considered, he may have a grievance. If he is considered but is wrongly found unfit, he may challenge the order if so advised but in those circumstances also a contempt petition would not lie.
2. As a result, the petition is dismissed A. E.