1988 PLP 712 (PLC(CS))

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.0.15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Suspension not a punishment‑‑Suspension for more than four days was not legal‑‑Workman allegedly found not fit for promotion due to suspension for several times on account, of at sense‑‑Suspension period every time exceeding four days but never any show cause‑notice for alleged misconduct of absence issued‑‑Such .suspension, held, was illegal and could not be considered for refusing promotion. H.R. Haider for Appellant. Zafar Iqbal for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1988 This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 24‑11‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion as Sanitary Jamadar was dismissed.

2. The appellant claimed promotion on the ground that Sohan Masih respondent No.2 who had been promoted was junior to him. The case of the respondent No.l is that the record of the appellant was not satisfactory inasmuch as he on account of absence was kept under suspension several times, therefore, the promotion committee did not recommend his name. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the appellant was considered for promotion and was not found fit, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed. Even if he was considered for promotion the reasons for not promoting him are not cogent. No doubt, the appellant was suspended many a times but according to Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 suspension for more than four days is not legal. Total period of suspension is 28 days but the appellant was kept under suspension sometimes beyond 28 days but in every case for more than four days at a stretch. Needless to say that unless the absence amounted misconduct and show cause‑notice was issued and enquiry was started, he could not be suspended from service. Suspension is not a punishment. Since the orders of suspension were not legal, the said suspensions could not be considered for refusing promotion. Admittedly the appellant was never charge‑sheeted for any absence. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, admittedly he is junior to the appellant. Since the recommendations of the Board has not been brought on the record even this cannot be said that the appellant was duly considered and that on account of suspensions he was not found fit for promotion. The learned Lower Court did not advert to this aspect of the case, therefore, erred in holding that the appellant was duly considered for promotion.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision the grievance petition of the appellant is accepted and the respondent is directed to consider the appellant for promotion and if he is found fit for promotion, his promotion would be with effect from the date on which the respondent No.2 was promoted. A. E. /517/Lb.P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.