1987 PLP 237 (PLC)
FAUJI SUGAR MILLS Ltd. Versus NOOR HUSSAIN and another
| Citation | 1987 PLP 237 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAUJI SUGAR MILLS Ltd. Versus NOOR HUSSAIN and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 237 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 237 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 237 (PLC) (FAUJI SUGAR MILLS Ltd. Versus NOOR HUSSAIN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Raees Mushtaq Ahmed &r Appellant. Date of hearing 6th April ,1986 Heard the arguments of Mr. Raees Mushtaq Ahmed, the learned counsel of the appellants. This appeal arises out of an Order passed by the Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, dated 23rd May, 1985. The order maintains the position of the promotion of Noor Hussain son of Noor Ahmed because it is felt that Noor Hussain after promotion has got the right to agitate it in a grievance petition.
2. On the other hand, the reply statement of the appellants is that promotion is not the basic right as it is contemplated by section 25-A, I.R.O. It is also replied by the appellants that it was stop-gap arrangement. I have read the impugned order and heard the arguments of the learned counsel. The only point raised is whether a petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. would lie in the instant case. Section 25-A of the I.R.O. reads as under:- "A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or c, lective bargaining agent, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises."
3. It is to be seen that the cause of action acrues to the petitioner only in respect of any right guaranteed or secured by him or under any law or any award or settlement. Promotion inter se by the Department or the Management for stop-gap arrangement or even otherwise is not the right to be agitated in a grievance petition. A promotion also A involves the reversion. At any time if the Management found that the worker has not come up to the level of the post he is promoted, he B could also be reverted.
4. Thus, there is no point in holding that because for more than three months he has worked as a promoted mechanic he has the right to file grievance petition. The Order appears to be faulty. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed. M.Y.H./808/Lb Appeal allowed.