1996 PLP 259 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General, Civic Centre, Hyderabad
| Citation | 1996 PLP 259 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi; Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General, Civic Centre, Hyderabad |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 259 (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 1996 PLP 259 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi; Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 259 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General, Civic Centre, Hyderabad). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Masood' Ali for Respondent.
- 2. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the appellant has remained absent. Appellant has therefore been heard in person. He cannot show any law or settlement under which he can claim his promotion as Junior Operator. The appellant states that the post of junior Operator is also `in Grade‑VI but there is opening for further promotion from the post. As Plumber, he cannot get higher promotion as a mechanic. These are not the matters, which can be agitated in a petition under Section 25-A industrial dispute, which can be considered by the Labour Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A--Promotion
Employee who was promoted as a Plumber, had claimed that instead of Plumber he should have been promoted as Junior Operator
Employee could not show any law or settlement under which he could claim his promotion as Junior Operator
Matter of promotion to a particular post not being industrial dispute, same could not be agitated in grievance petition under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 before Labour Court. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Employee who was promoted as a Plumber, had claimed that instead of Plumber he should have been promoted as Junior Operator‑‑‑Employee could not show any law or settlement under which he could claim his promotion as Junior Operator‑‑‑Matter of promotion to a particular post not being industrial dispute, same could not be agitated in grievance petition under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 before Labour Court. Appellant in person. Syed Masood' Ali for Respondent. The appellant was appointed as valveman BPS‑3 in H.D.A. He was then promoted as Pressure Mistry BPS‑5 and thereafter as a Plumber in BPS
6. His grievance was that instead of Plumber he should have been promoted as Junior Operator. The learned Labour Court, Hyderabad dismissed the grievance petition holding that the appellant had no legal right guaranteed or secured to claim has promotion as Junior Operator. The appellant has therefore appealed.
2. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the appellant has remained absent. Appellant has therefore been heard in person. He cannot show any law or settlement under which he can claim his promotion as Junior Operator. The appellant states that the post of junior Operator is also `in Grade‑VI but there is opening for further promotion from the post. As Plumber, he cannot get higher promotion as a mechanic. These are not the matters, which can be agitated in a petition under Section 25-A industrial dispute, which can be considered by the Labour Court. There is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./16/Lb.S Appeal dismissed