1991 PLP 101 (PLC)

S.25-A--Promotion--Appellant having grievance against promotion and posting of respondent at a particular place (Karachi) as he claimed that respondent was junior to him--Labour Court dismissed grievance petition of appellant who was earlier promoted and was posted at Quetta but did not join and wanted to be posted at Karachi--Appellant, in the grievance petition prayed that he be given chance of promotion retrospectively and posted at Karachi--Held, promotion with retrospective effect was not a right guaranteed under any law, award or a settlement--Appeal against order of Labour Court was dismissed--Labour. Appellate Tribunal, however, observed that the department while dealing with promotion and posting of employees would be fair to all employees. MA.Hassan Malik for Appellant. Date of hearing: 8th April, 1990. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dated 17th February, 1990, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2. I have heard Mr. MA. Hassan Malik, learned Advocate for the appellant and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Bridge Mistry with the respondents and his grievance is that the persons who have been promoted are junior to him but he had not been promoted. His main grievance is against respondent No.3 who was first promoted in November, 1978. However, this promotion was on temporary basis not affecting any seniority but now he has been posted against permanent vacancy at Karachi in 1987. The appellant claims that he should have been posted at Karachi against the said vacancy from the date the Respondent No.3 was posted. The learned Labour Court was of the view that transfer and posting is not the vested right of the employee which could be enforced. Admittedly the respondent No.3 was first promoted in 1978 on temporary basis without any apparent objection or appeal from the appellant. He has now been posted in permanent vacancy in 1987. Admittedly the appellant was also promoted in 1984 and was posted at Quetta but he put certain conditions which the department was not able to accede to or post him at Karachi. Therefore, the appellant did not resume at Quetta and thus in fact he had fore gone his promotion in 1984. Admittedly the appellant is now promoted in 1989 on his same pay and scale. Be that it may, that fact remain that the appellant is being considered for promotion from time to time. The only grievance of the appellant appears to be that he should be posted at Karachi. In the grievance petition he has prayed that he should be given chance of promotion retrospectively, which is not right guaranteed under any law, award or a settlement. As such, the appeal is dismissed in limine. However, it is expected that the Department while dealing with promotion and postings of its employees would be fair to all the employees. M.Y.H./1656/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.