1998 PLP 87 (PLC)

Promotion

Employee despite being senior to co-employee was not granted promotion on due date, but co-employee who was junior to him was granted promotion prior to employee

Employee was superseded for the reason that due to his absence from duty for few hours he was once warned

Labour Court rightly found that warning could not be made a basis, for supersession of employee, particularly when employee had been granted casual leave for the whole day, although employee had applied for a short leave and he left office for a short while

Even otherwise employee could not be ignored without holding a domestic enquiry and without holding him guilty of misconduct at the time of promotion of his colleagues

Labour Court rightly held that no justification existed for inflicting upon employee penalty in the form of his deprivation from promotion from the due date. Shoaib Saeed for Appellants. Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1997. By way of the instant appeal has been called in question the soundness of the decision dated 25-11-1996, rendered by Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, camping at Sahiwal, Presiding Officer being Mr. K. M. Sohel.

2. Khalid Zulqarnain, a Purchase Inspector, working with PASSCO, had on 21-6-1995 filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the 'Authorities' of the PASSCO, as also other five Purchase Inspectors, and had challenged the validity of the act of the ' Authorities' of PASSCO, in ignoring him and promoting respondents Nos. 4 to 8 (before the Labour Court) instead, from a certain date. His departmental appeal was allowed, but still he had sense of deprivation, in as much as he was promoted with effect from 20-2-1993, although the due date was 20-5-1992. It is not denied that Khalid Zulqarnain is senior to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 before the, Labour Court, who had got the promotion with effect from 20-5-1992. Khalid was superseded for the reason that for his abence from duty he had once been warned. The learned Labour Court has expressed the view that this warning could not be made a basis for supersession of Mr.Khalid Zulqarnain, particularly when he had been granted casual leave, for the whole day, although he had applied for a short leave, and had left the office for a short-while. It has also been observed, and rightly so, that without holding a domestic enquiry into the aforesaid incident, and without holding Khalid guilty of misconduct, he could not be ignored, at the time of promotion of his colleagues. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is of the view that Khalid Zulqarnain was given promotion by the 'Authorities' in deference to verdict given, while disposing of his departmental appeal, but still the 'Authorities' were swayed by an element of bias and prejudice and in sneakish way withheld what was due and half-heartedly granted promotion to Mr. Khalid from a certain date and not from the due date.

3. There was no justification for inflicting upon the official penalty in the form of his deprivation from promotion from the due date. Those junior to Khalid were favoured and he was ignored, as regards his promotion, on no valid promises. Vide Notification Exh. P-4, Khalid Zulqarnain was promoted or upgraded as Purchase Inspector, with effect from 20-2-1993, 5vhereas five officials junior to him were so promoted, vide order dated 19-5-1992, with effect from the same date, as per Exh. P-1. The document Exh.R-1 indicates that Mr. Khalid had been warned on 12-3-1991, owing to his absence from duty, for three hours, on the preceding day, i.e. 11-3-1991. But even in that order he had not been recommended for being ignored at the time of promotion. Although, as already said, the juniors were given promotion, with effect from 20-5-1992. Khalid was promoted from 20-2-1993, and this was done without any legal justification whatever. Any administrative expediency also did not warrant adverse action against Khalid Zulqarnain. As per document Exh. P-2, the General Manager (Adman) had himself made it clear to the employees that if any one felt that he had adversely been affected, he could file an appeal before the Managing Director in writing by 30-6-1992. Khalid lodged a departmental appeal which is available at page 43 of the file of the lower Court, and it was forwarded to General Manger (Adman) on. 16-3-1993, vide Exh.P-5, promotion having been ordered on 20-2-1993. He had also ventilated his grievance in relation to his promotion to the Managing Director as would appear from the representation existing at pages 47 and 49 of the file of the lower Court. It revealed that he had earlier also made a representation in that behalf, with a request that he be also considered for promotion as Purchase Inspector with effect from 20-5-1992. He was, however, ignored and his grievance was only partially attended to, whereupon he had to approach the Labour Court for redress of his grievance, by filing a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Labour Court has taken a correct view; and I am at a loss to understand as to how can the reasoning adopted and the verdict given by the a learned lower Court be differed with. I would endorse decision. The appeal filed by the PASSCO has no merit, and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./893/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.