1986 PLP 618 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN
| Citation | 1986 PLP 618 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 618 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 618 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 618 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Petitioner ignored for promotion as not found fit and not recommended by Promotion Committee due to adverse remarks in Character Roll already communicated to petitioner‑ Petition claiming promotion, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. LHR‑96 of 1985, decided on 24th December, 1985. ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Petitioner ignored for promotion as not found fit and not recommended by Promotion Committee due to adverse remarks in Character Roll already communicated to petitioner‑ Petition claiming promotion, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court. Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Appellant. Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1985. The decision, dated 22‑1‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion has been dismissed.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that although he is admittedly senior to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 yet the latters have been promoted and he (the appellant) has been ignored. The ground on which the appellant was ignored is that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend him for promotion as there were adverse remarks against him in 1975 and 1979 (Exhs. R‑1 and 2.). They show that the adverse remarks were duly conveyed to him and the appellant admits that he had moved for the expunction of the adverse remarks but his representation was rejected. In view of the fact that there were adverse remarks in his ACRs, he was rightly not promoted. His grievance petition, therefore, was rightly dismissed. However, he can be considered for promotion in future if he gets good reports. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. A.E. Appeal dismissed.