1990 PLP 533 (PLC)
BASHIR AHMAD SIDDIQIE Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another
| Citation | 1990 PLP 533 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD SIDDIQIE Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another |
| Primary Law | Appeal dismissed |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 533 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal dismissed as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 533 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 533 (PLC) (BASHIR AHMAD SIDDIQIE Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Suleman Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 6th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Promotion or confirmation‑‑‑Fitness for‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Promotion/confirmation of an employee of establishment, held, was the function of employer and not of Labour Court‑‑‑Workman, held, could not have any grievance to challenge fitness as determined by employer. ORDER This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 12‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was partly accepted and setting aside the promotion of respondent No.2 Mr.Javed Aslam respondent No.1 was directed to make fresh appointment in accordance with the office order dated 8‑3‑1986. The office order referred to above reads as under:‑ "All the promotion and permanent cases of the workers whether as a result of agreement with the union (CBA) or otherwise shall be decided purely on seniority, efficiency and fitness basis. This principle should be adhered to strictly, while promoting and making the workers permanent." The grievance of the appellant is that the learned lower Court did not direct the respondent No.1 to confirm him as seasonal clerk. This is the function of the employer to consider whether an employee is fit for promotion or fit for being confirmed against a permanent vacancy. This is not the function of the Labour Court. The learned lower Court has directed respondent No.1 to make fresh appointment in accordance with the office order dated 8‑3‑1986. The appellant, therefore, may try his luck before the employer and if he satisfies the employer he may be confirmed against a permanent vacancy. The appellant cannot have any grievance to challenge the impugned order.
2. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./444/Lb.P
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 12‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was partly accepted and setting aside the promotion of respondent No.2 Mr.Javed Aslam respondent No.1 was directed to make fresh appointment in accordance with the office order dated 8‑3‑1986. The office order referred to above reads as under:‑ "All the promotion and permanent cases of the workers whether as a result of agreement with the union (CBA) or otherwise shall be decided purely on seniority, efficiency and fitness basis. This principle should be adhered to strictly, while promoting and making the workers permanent." The grievance of the appellant is that the learned lower Court did not direct the respondent No.1 to confirm him as seasonal clerk. This is the function of the employer to consider whether an employee is fit for promotion or fit for being confirmed against a permanent vacancy. This is not the function of the Labour Court. The learned lower Court has directed respondent No.1 to make fresh appointment in accordance with the office order dated 8‑3‑1986. The appellant, therefore, may try his luck before the employer and if he satisfies the employer he may be confirmed against a permanent vacancy. The appellant cannot have any grievance to challenge the impugned order.
2. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./444/Lb.P