1999 PLP 81 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN) ‑‑‑This order will dispose of the above titled appeal filed by Chief Engineer, G.S.O., WAPDA, Multan against the order dated 29‑5‑1995 recorded by Agha Salim Khurshid, Member‑I, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore Bench whereby the petition filed by respondent Noor Dad, Foreman was accepted and the respondent (now appellant) was directed to accommodate the respondent/petitioner, for promotion/selection grade within a period of fifteen days in a lawful manner.

2. In his written arguments, the counsel for the appellant stated that the respondent was working as Foreman at Mardan and on his own request was transferred to Multan and placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Foremen at serial number

33. He sought promotion on the basis of seniority in the next grade but his case was not still mature and he was told that his case will be considered on his own turn. He thereafter, filed the petition before the N.I.R.C. praying that the appellant be directed not to commit any further unfair labour practice and allow him BPS‑

17. The learned Member in the Single Bench, without determining, if it was a case of unfair labour practice, passed the impugned order even without recording any evidence which is based on surmises and conjectures. It was next urged that, no instance of unfair labour practice was mentioned in the petition. Respondent was not even a member of any union. He was a civil servant under section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act, and therefore, the N.I.R.C. ha, no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Arguments were concluded with the submission that the learned Member could not order promotion of the respondent and at the most could direct the appellant to place his case before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration in accordance with the rules on the subject.

3. Seeking condonation of delay for filing the appeal with delay, it Was submitted that the impugned order was not announced in the open Court and in his presence of the counsel of the appellant. The order came to, the knowledge of the appellant on 4‑8‑1995 when the respondent submitted an application along-with copy of the order for its implementation. There after, certified copy was supplied on 13‑8‑1995 and the appeal was filed on 17‑8‑1995 within time. However, the delay was not intentional or deliberate and was caused due to the circumstances explained herein, and therefore, same may be condoned. 4. 'Respondent's counsel vehemently stressed that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the sole ground‑of limitation as according to the record the learned Member of N.I.R.C. accepted the petition after hear in the arguments and the detail order was subsequently recorded. Law favours vigilant and not the indolent. It was next urged that grade of Foreman Is BPS‑12 and the respondent is eligible for promotion to the next grade/post in BPS‑

17. The Single Bench, therefore, rightly directed the respondent to accommodate the respondent for promotion/selection grade within a period of fifteen days in a lawful manner. 4‑A. After hearing the arguments and going through the record as ""ell the impugned order, we are of the view that the question as to whether the respondent is senior to this colleagues who are alleged to have been promoted, is a question of fact, which has not been decided by the Single Bench naturally because no evidence was led in that respect. However, according to the seniority list of Assistant Foreman, (Annexure `C` appended with the petition), he is shown at serial number

3. This does not resolve the controversy in issue. According to the respondent/petitioner, he is presently working as Foreman in BPS‑12 and his grievance is that he has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post/grade in BPS‑

17. The appellant did not state in the written statement filed before the Single Bench specifically as to whether or not the respondent was considered for promotion to the next higher grade/post. In these circumstances, the learned Single Bench rightly directed the appellant department to consider the case of the respondent for promotion/selection grade in a lawful manner within a period of fifteen days. It As, therefore, not correct to say that the learned Member had granted promotion to the respondent. It is further clarified that the appellant department should consider the eligibility of the respondent fog promotion/selection grade in accordance with the departmental rules and, of course, on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness but the matter must be decided within the given period.

5. The appeal on the face of the record appears to be time‑barred, as the order‑sheet of the Single Bench shows that after the arguments were heard the petition was accepted and the detailed order was passed later on. The objection that no unfair labour practice was committed has also no force because the respondent specifically alleged that he was victimised on account of trade union activities and that he was supporter of Ch. Safdar and Muhammad Shakeel group of the Pakistan WAPDA Hydro‑Electric Central Labour Union and on account of that at the instance of the other group led by Mian Munir and Khurshid Ahmad, he was victimised and ignored although his juniors were promoted.

6. The matter in issue agitated before the N.I.R.C. related to fitness for promotion or otherwise, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Services Tribunal. Further the matter is based on the allegations of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15/16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for which the N. I. R. C. has exclusive jurisdiction.

7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./316/N.I.R.C. Appeal dismissed.