1990 PLP 61 (PLC)
AKHTARUL ISLAM Versus K.D.A. through M.A. JAMIL SIDDIQUI, PROJECT DIRECTOR (WBP)
| Citation | 1990 PLP 61 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AKHTARUL ISLAM Versus K.D.A. through M.A. JAMIL SIDDIQUI, PROJECT DIRECTOR (WBP) |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 61 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 61 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 61 (PLC) (AKHTARUL ISLAM Versus K.D.A. through M.A. JAMIL SIDDIQUI, PROJECT DIRECTOR (WBP)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Promotion‑‑Claim for‑‑Promotion, is not a vested right guaranteed under law which can be enforced through Court, but is the sole discretion, of employer to appoint any person on a particular post whom he thinks suitable for the job. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Promotion‑‑Claim for‑‑Promotion, is not a vested right guaranteed under law which can be enforced through Court, but is the sole discretion, of employer to appoint any person on a particular post whom he thinks suitable for the job. Appellant in person. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1989. Appellant Akhtarul Islam present in person and heard. None is present for the respondents. I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
2. This is an appeal against the impugned order passed by Sindh Labour Court No.1 at Karachi, dated 7‑12‑1988, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant under section 25‑A I.R.O., 1969, was dismissed.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that one Jan Muhammad was junior to him and has been promoted as Charge-man in spite of the fact that he is junior to the appellant. I find that Jan Muhammad has not been made a party. Furthermore, it appears that the appellant had not produced seniority list and order of promotion of Jan Muhammad before the learned Labour Court, but, he has produced the copies of the seniority list as well as the alleged order of promotion of Jan Muhammad in this Tribunal. It appears that in the seniority list the appellant is at Sl.No.45 while in the list Jan Muhammad is at Sl. No.
54. The impugned order under which Jan Muhammad is said to have been promoted shows that he has been posted as Chargeman on the same pay and scale which he was getting as Operator loader. This order cannot be considered as order of promotion. Furthermore, it is a settled law, that the promotion is not vested right guaranteed under Law, which can be enforced through the Labour Court. It is the sole discretion of the employer to appoint any person on a particular post whom he thinks suitable for the job. In the instant case, the impugned order does not show Jan Muhammad had been promoted. If and when there is a formal order of promotion of Jan Muhammad, the appellant would have a right to file departmental appeal etc. Presently, I find no merits in this appeal, which is dismissed. H.B.T./1488/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.