1994 PLP 593 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 593 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 593 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 593 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 593 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Jeelani for Appellant.
- Abdus Samad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Employee was originally employed as Security Guard in Grade‑11, but later on after completing special training course, he was appointed as Electric Repairman Attendant in Grade‑V‑‑‑Settlement entered into between C.BA. and Management showed that workers in employer's establishment were entitled to time scale promotion on completion of five, years service‑‑‑Settlement further provided that employee was given time scale promotion after completing five years service as Electric Repairman Attendant in Grade V, but employee had claimed promotion from his original appointment as Security Guard‑‑‑Employee having been regularised in present job as Electric Repairman Attendant after changing his line of employment, his time scale promotion was rightly determined after five years from regularisation of his job as Electric Repairman Attendant‑‑‑No breach of settlement was committed by employer in computing of time scale promotion, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdus Samad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th April, 1994. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, whereby the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., praying for time scale promotion came to be dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner had joined the respondent's service on 4‑3‑1979 as Security Guard Grade P.C, Il. On 18‑2‑1981 he was selected for a Special Training Course and after one year's training was appointed as Electric Repairman Attendant in Grade‑V. It was alleged that according to the Settlement entered into between the CBA and the Management the workers were entitled to time scale promotion on completion of five years service. He was, therefore, entitled to the same with effect from 4‑3‑1984 and not from 2‑3‑1986 which entailed delay of two years. He had made representation but without any result. He had, therefore, served the grievance notice on 5‑1‑1992 and later filed the petition.
3. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds including non‑maintainability and bar of time. It was further alleged that as the petitioner had changed his "line of employment" he was regularised in that cadre on 1‑3‑1981 his time scale promotion had become due and was revised on 2‑3‑1986 in accordance with the Circular No. GM (A&P), dated 8‑12‑1988.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Mubarak Ali Syed, Deputy Manager, CMD appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. Admittedly the appellant had chosen to breach off from one section to another and as pointed out by Mr. Abdus Samad, to his great advantage. Be that as it may, he came to be regularised in the present job as Electric Repairman Attendant after he had completed training in 1981. Under the circumstances there is no breach of the Settlement in the computing of the Time Scale Promotion. There is no warrant for holding two years of service in, a different job with an inferior grade to claim promotion under a different pay scale.
6. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T/2317/Lb.S Appeal dismissed