1986 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS))
PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED Versus Ch. FAKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED Versus Ch. FAKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another |
| Primary Law | Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1073 (PLC(CS)) (PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED Versus Ch. FAKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Promotion‑‑Consideration for‑‑‑Right of employee‑‑Proof‑Reader of Progressive Papers Ltd., ignored while promoting his junior‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition against being ignored, in circumstances, held, not assailable.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Appellant. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984. The titled appeal challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 27‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.
2. The respondents were Proof Readers. Ch. Fakhar‑ud‑Din was employed in 1966, whereas Mahmood Ahmad was taken in service in 1970. Mahmood Ahmad was promoted in the next higher grade and Ch. Fakhar‑ud‑Din was ignored. He, therefore, challenged the order in his petition under section 25‑A alleging that since he was officer of a union, so with male fide intention he was ignored.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no provision in the Rules about promotion. This is not so. There is a provision of promotion in section 3 of Act LVIII of 1973 Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) which says that at the time of appointment, transfer or promotion, terms and conditions o: service should be provided in writing, so there exists the provision of A promotion and the appellant actually promoted Mahmood Ahmad but since he was junior to the respondent namely Ch. Fakhar‑ud‑Din, the latter challenged it. So there is a right guaranteed by law.
4. It has also been argued that the promotion is not a right. The learned lower Court has rightly answered this contention. Every employee has a right that he be at least considered for promotion. It is no doubt the function of the employer alone to decide who is fit for B promotion. The impugned decision of the learned lower Court, therefore, is not assailable.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A. E.