1983 PLP 692 (PLC(CS))

"This appeal is directed against the decision of learned VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad, given on 18th August, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman, who had challenged the promo tion of respondent No. 2, Sardar Masib, to the rank fof Mechanic, Grade I, and claimed that he had a greater right than the respondent to the above post. It is an admitted position that before his promotion as mechanic Grade No 1, respondent Sardar Masih was holding the rank of 'Mechanic Grade

11. At that time, the appellant was holding the post of Fitter, Grade I. It is contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that common seniority is maintained for Mechanic Grade Ii and Fitter Grade I for the pur poses of promotion to Mechanic Grade I. The learned counsel further submitted that by a settlement entered into by the respondent organization with collective bargaining agent‑ therein, promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness. The learned counsel claimed that the appellant had seniority and was also fit for promotion. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent organiza tion that respondent No. 2 was senior to appellant and this seniority was granted to the said respondent on a representation made by him. Even if this contention be not well‑founded, the question is whether the appellant can claim promotion as of right merely on the basis of seniority. As already pointed out, the established practice in the respondent' organization, based on the settlement arrived at with the collective bargaining agent, was that . promotion be made on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness. A similar issue arose in the case reported as W. P. I. D. C. v. S: L. C. No‑ V, Karachi (1976 P L C 3). In that case also, as in the instant case, there was a settlement between the workers' representatives and the employer guaranteeing the filling of a post from amongst the existing staff on the basis of seniority- cum‑fitness. At was held in that case that promotion could not be claimed on the basis of seniority alone and that the question o! fitness was within the sole Jurisdiction of the employer and the management was free to hold any selection whether from amongst emp loyees already working or from amongst outsiders. On that view of the matter, the employees request for promotion solely on considera tion of seniority was rejected. A similar view was taken in the case of Muttaqqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind and another (P L D 1978 Kar.703). In that case also one of the issues which fell to be considered was whether promotion could be claimed on the basis of seniority alone when the criteria for promotion was seniority‑cum‑fitness. In that case, sit ting as Judge of the High Court, I had held that even in the case of non‑selection post seniority would not entitle a person for promotion and even in such cases the basis for promotion is seniority‑cum‑fitness and fitness can appropriately be determined only by a competent administrative authority.

2. In the instant case, the respondent organization has asserted that the appellant was not considered fit for promotion as he has experience only as a fitter and not as a Mechanic and that experience as Mechanic wa4 considered indispensable for promoting a person as Mechanic Grade 1.

3. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same: