2011 PLP 200 (PLC)

CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.

Through the instant writ petition petitioner has called in question the validity of the impugned judgments passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 by way of which promotion of the petitioner as Supervisor in the Disposal Works Department was declared illegal and without lawful authority.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 was appointed as Driver in the Disposal Works Department on 30-1-1991 whereas the petitioner was also employed as Driver in the Water Works Department under the respondent No.4. The Disposal Works Department declared a facility of payment of "overtime charges" to their employees. Allured by its additional benefit in the Disposal Department petitioner requested for change of department from Water to Disposal Works which was allowed. Later on respondent No.4 issued a joint seniority list of employees of both the departments i.e. Water and Disposal Works. All the employees of both the departments objected to this joint seniority list and requested that since the employees of both the departments belonged to different cadres as such their separate seniority list may be prepared. However, petitioner filed a civil suit before the trial Court which was dismissed on 9-8-2004. After failing to get relief from the Civil Court, the petitioner clandestinely procured his promotion as Supervisor in the Disposal Works Department. Respondent No.3 having come to know about the said promotion filed a grievance petition before the Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.8 Bahawalpur which was accepted on 17-11-2006 and the promotion of the petitioner was declared illegal and without lawful authority. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19-5-2010. Having dissatisfied with the said judgments petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the judgments passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are against law and facts and also not sustainable in the eyes of law; that Promotion Committee was a necessary party but he was not made as party in the grievance petition; that according to law the promotion cannot be claimed as a right therefore, the respondent No.3 cannot be promoted; further submits that although the nomenclature of the employees of Disposal Works and Water Works is different however, their status is same which is regulated by a common seniority list, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner from one department to another will not effect the seniority of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the judgments passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are in accordance with law and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments. Further submits that the petitioner himself has changed his cadre during his service, therefore, he cannot claim his seniority and have also supported the impugned judgments of both the courts below.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It is stark reality that when an employee leaves his own department and joins the other one the rule of seniority is that he will be at the tail end of the seniority list of the new department. Undisputedly, petitioner joined the Water Works Department a few months earlier than the respondent No.3 but thereafter the petitioner changed the said department and joined the Disposal Works Department, therefore, when the petitioner leaves his mother department with his own whims and wishes then he cannot claim his seniority of the earlier department. Furthermore, there is concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments have taken into consideration all the material aspects of the case. The findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in writ jurisdiction.

7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the instant writ petition and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./K-11/L Petition dismissed.