1999 PLP 227 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974). S.2(1)(b)‑‑‑ Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Labour Court by its judgment accepted grievance petition of petitioner and ordered for his taking into service as tube-well driver and set aside appointment of respondent who was directly appointed to that post‑‑‑Legality and maintainability of grievance petition‑‑‑Petitioner who was an illiterate person initially was employed as Greecer' and through promotion could claim appointment as Fitter or Mechanic in due course, whereas post of Tube-well Driver for which minimum qualification was passing of Middle Examination was not a promotion post, but was purely a recruitment one‑‑‑Respondent who was appointed as Tube-well Driver being Matriculate, his appointment could not be undone‑‑‑Petitioner being a civil servant as defined in S.2(1)(b) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, competent forum for redress of his greivance was Service Tribunal and not Labour Court if he was to enforce his service rights and impugned appointment of respondent for a particular post in same set‑up‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by petitioner, thus, was not maintainable. Rana Farman Ali Sabir for Appellants. Respondent in person. By a judgment rendered on 6‑7‑1994 by the learned Labour Court, Multan, camping at Muzaffargarh, Ghulam Muhammad's grievance petition filed under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted, and he was ordered to be taken in service as tubewell driver, and Zafar Hussain's appointment having directly been made against the said post was set aside. The Department has come up in appeal to this forum.

2. I have gone through the judgment of the learned lower Court and considered the matter dispassionately. I find myself inclined to accept the plea of the appellant that the respondent being a civil servant, has defined in the section 2, subsection 1, clause (b), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1973, the competent forum was the Punjab Service Tribunal and not the labour Court, if he was to enforce his service rights and impugn the appointment of another official for a particular post in the same set‑up. I also agree with the contention raised by the appellants to the effect that post of tube‑well driver was purely a recruitment post and not a promotion post. Ghulam Muhammad had initially been employed as Greecer (BPS‑I) and through promotion he could claim appointment as fitter or mechanic (BPS‑2&3) in due course. It is also to be kept in mind that he was an illiterate person, although minimum qualification for the post of tube‑well driver was middle‑pass. He has to maintain important record in writing and has to be well‑versed with meter- reading and making entries in log book etc. Ghulam Muhammad could not read and write and, thus, was not qualified to hold the post. Zafar Hussain was matriculate and although he was over‑age by a few years, at the time, when he got the appointment, the competent Authority had made the necessary relaxation in the regard. The appointment as such could not be undone. Incidentally the learned Presiding Officer of the Court which rendered the impugned decision had a confirmed reputation of being pro -petitioner, as whosoever came to his Court was necessarily to be crowned with success, whether or not he had a genuine grievance or a good case on merits. This was not a logical and a judicial approach and even considerations of equity did not enjoin upon the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to concede to the litigate the desired relief by hook or by crook even if it was not due. I do not find myself eye to eye with the reasoning of the learned lower Court given, while accepting the grievance petition of the respondent, petitioner in the Court below. I would set aside the judgment dated 6‑7‑1994 and allow the appeal of the Department. There shall be no order as to costs, as the success in the two forms has been divided. H.B.T./945/Lb.T. Appeal allowed.