1983 PLP 536 (PLC)

The three appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 11th May, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Hanif was accepted and he was directed to be promoted as Assistant with effect from 1st July, 1978 without back benefits.

2. As all the appeals arise from the same decision, .they are being disposed of through this single judgment in which Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company will be described as appellant No. 1, Arthur Samuel as appellant No. 2, Muhammad Hayat as appellant No. 3 and Muhammad Hanif as the respondent.

3. The facts are that for promotion on two posts of Assistants, recom mendations were invited by the employer. Arthur Samuel and Muhammad H'ayat, appellants Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, were recommended but the respondent was not recommended. The remarks "Muhammad Hanif is work ing in a different department and is not capable of taking the place of Mr. Hayat/Mr. Arthur Samuel were not sufficient it) ignore the respon dent. The fact that Muhammad Hanif is working in a department different to the one in which appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were working could not be a ground to ignore when admittedly the seniority of all of them was joint. The mere fact that the respondent was not capable of taking the place of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 could not be a ground to ignore him. The remarks are in facts self contradictory. On one hand it is remarked that he had not in his own department shown any efficiency or desire to pick up the work and that he was sluggish but on the other hand it is said that he is getting typing allowance of Rs. 20 only against the maximum of Rs.

25. This shows that he is not efficient to the maximum and not that he was inefficient. Since he is getting typing allowance less than the one which was (sic) by appellants Nos. 2 and 3., it means that he was efficient but less than appellants Nos. 2 and

3. For promotion, seniority and fitness are to be seen. Since the respondent was admittedly senior to appel lants Nos. 2 and 3 and was efficient also, he could not be ignored. For selection post comparison can be made between the various incumbents to see who is more efficient. But this is not case of the appellants that the post of Assistant is a selection post. So selection could not be made. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly directed the promotion of the respon dent.

4. The grounds given by the lower Court for not allowing back bene fits are not cogent and sufficient. No doubt, the respondent did not work as Assistant but this was his very grievance. If he had been promoted, be would not have knocked the door of the Court. He did not work as Assistant not for any of his fault. He was unjustifiably ignored. Promotion is not a right no doubt, but at the same time it is not the pleasure of the employer to promote or refuse to promote without reasonable ground. 'the respondent, therefore, was entitled to back benefits also.

5. As a result of the discussion made above, I dismiss the appeals of all the three appellants and accepting the appeal of the respondent allow back benefits to him. Order accordingly.