1989 PLP 828 (PLC)

3. Both the respondents i.e. Paras Textile Mills as well as Hidayatullah have filed separate written replies. Both of them have raised the same averments in (heir written replies. They have contended that petitioner Muhammad Latif was not entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer as he was working in the Accounts Department, which is a Department different from the Commercial department in which respondent Hidayatullah was working as Sales Assistant and in which the post of Sales Officer had fallen vacant and was filed in by promotion. The sum and substance of the written replies filed by both the respondents is that a person working in a particular Department can be promoted to a higher post in the same department but a person working in one department cannot be promoted in the Department other than that in which he is working although he may be senior in service in all the Departments. It has been contended that respondent Hidayatullah was rightly promoted to the post of Sales Officer as he was formerly working as a Sales Assistant in the same department and that therefore, petitioner Muhammad Latif cannot have any grievance in this behalf and that, therefore, no cause of action had arisen to him.

4. The management of the respondent Paras Textile Mills have admitted that no reply to the grievance notice was given to the petitioner but the latter was informed verbally that he had no grievance as he was not entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer, because he was not working in the Sales Department. Both the respondents have prayed that the petition Filed by petitioner Muhammad Latif under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 be dismissed with costs.

6. The parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective cases and I have perused the same. I have also heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The point for determination in the present case is whether petitioner Muhammad Latif was entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer. In other words, it has to be found out whether the promotion of respondent Hidayatullah to the post of Sales Officer is illegal and is liable to he set aside. I shall discuss this point in the following paragraphs.

8. One of the allegations levelled by petitioner Muhammad Latif is that the promotion of respondent Hidayatullah is collusive as the said respondent was promoted by Mian Muhammad Afzal, Commercial Manager in the respondent establishment, for the reason that they were on good terms with each other in connection with some secret affairs of the respondent Mills. The petitioner has produced evidence without substance on this point. P.W. 1 Qayyum Nawaz, who is a workman in the respondent Mills, has deposed that respondent Hidayatullah has good relations with Commercial Manager Mian Muhammad Afzal. He has stated in the cross‑examination that both of them have good relations with each other as they are working in the same department and for the reason also as respondent Hidayatullah is the subordinate of Mian Muhammad Afzal. P.W. 2 Allah Wasaya, who also is an employee in the respondent Mills, has stated that something had happened in connection with the Waste Cotton; meaning thereby that respondent Hidayatullah and Mian Muhammad Afzal had done some overt act against the interest of the respondent Mills. P.W.3 Muhammad Sharif also has made a vague statement in this behalf. Petitioner Muhammad Latif himself has appeared as P.W. 4 and has made a different statement to the effect that officers of the respondent Management who were transferred to Bahawalpur from Lahore and Faisalabad bring employees with them and then they promote them by adversely affecting the rights of the deserving employees, i.e., they favour those workers who are brought by them from Lahore and Faisalabad and harm the interests of those employees who are already working in Bahawalpur.

9. In rebuttal, R.W.1 respondent Hidayatullah has denied the abovesaid allegation of the petitioner. It has transpired from the evidence set out above that there is no evidence worth the name to prove the allegation that respondent Hidayatullah was promoted by Mian Muhammad Afzal collusively. It appears to me that this allegation is without any substance. The petitioner has failed to prove this allegation. The result is that the allegation of the petitioner in this behalf is rejected.

10. Now, I shall discuss the merits of the case. As already stated above, the case of petitioner Muhammad Latif is that he is senior to respondent Hidayatullah and that, therefore, he was entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer. Conversely, the case of respondent Hidayatullah as well as of respondent Paras Textile Mills is that petitioner Muhammad Latif was not entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer as he was working in the Accounts Department and not in the Commercial Department in which the post of Sales Officer had fallen vacant. I shall deal with both these points in the following lines.

11. Petitioner Muhammad Latif has produced the seniority list of Assistants employed in the respondent Paras Textile Mills and the same is Exh. P.1. According to this seniority list, petitioner Muhammad Latif is at Sr.No. 3 of this list while respondent Hidayatullah is at Sr. No. 6 of the list under reference. This means that petitioner Muhammad Latif is senior to respondent Hidayatullah. However as already stated above the case of the respondent is that petitioner Muhammad Latif was not entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer as he was working in the Accounts Department while respondent Hidayatullah was working in the Commercial Department, in which the post of Sales Officer had fallen vacant and against which the said respondent has been promoted. All the witnesses produced by the petitioner have admitted that petitioner Muhammad Latif had never worked as a Sales Assistant while respondent Hidayatullah had been working as a Sales Assistant for the last five years. It is also in evidence that petitioner Muhammad Latif was employed initially as a clerk in the Accounts Department and that he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the same department. The statements of P.W. 1 Qayyum Nawaz, P.W.2. Allah Wasaya and P.W. 4 petitioner Muhammad Latif himself are relevant on this point.

12. Thus, supposing for the sake of arguments only, if the case taken up by the respondents is accepted, petitioner Muhammad Latif was not entitled to promotion as Sales Officer as he never worked in that department. On the other hand, as per case of the respondent, Hidayatullah was entitled to promotion to the post of Sales Officer as he had all along been in the Commercial Department as a Sales Assistant.

13. All such controversy has already been decided and settled by the superior Courts. It was held in 1983 P L C 536 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab) that a person working in one department cannot be ignored for promotion to a post in another department when he is admittedly senior to the person promoted. The seniority list Exh. P.1 is the seniority list of all the Assistants in various departments of the respondent Paras Textile Mills. There is nothing on record that separate seniority lists have been maintained by the respondent Paras Textile Mills for different departments. There is also nothing on record to the effect that senior person in one department cannot be promoted to a higher post in another department. No Rule or Regulation in this behalf has been produced by the respondent Paras Textile Mills.

14. For what has been stated above, the issue has been clinched and the controversy has been set at rest by the dictum laid down in 1983 P L C 536 referred to above. Keeping in view this authority, petitioner Muhammad Latif has come out successfully to his case while the case taken up by the respondents has failed. As a result, the petition filed by petitioner Muhammad Latif under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The only relief claimed by petitioner Muhammad Latif was that promotion of respondent Hidayatullah to the post of Sales Officer was illegal and ineffective on his rights. Beyond this, he had not claimed any other relief. Therefore, the relief given by this judgment is that the promotion of respondent Hidayatullah has been declared illegal and has been set aside. Above all, no other relief could be given in the present petition. It is not proper for this Court to order that petitioner Muhammad Latif be promoted to the post of Sales Officer. The reason being that some other Assistants mentioned in the seniority list Exh. P. 1 are senior to him.

15. For what has been stated above, the respondent Paras Textile Mills, Bahawalpur, may proceed to make promotion to the post of Sales Officer in accordance with law and Rules and Regulations, if already framed by them. A.E./527/Lb. P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.