1994 PLP 278 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Transfer and promotion‑‑‑Trial Court as well as Appellate Tribunal after thorough scrutiny of material placed before them, had recorded a concurrent finding of fact that transfer of co‑employee was not justified and that employee being senior most should be considered for promotion‑‑‑Courts below being competent to decide case, concurrent finding of fact recorded by them based on record and relevant service rules, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Ahmad Awais for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 18th November, 1992. This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, calls in question the order dated 15‑1‑1989 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal whereby decision dated 26‑10‑1988 of the Punjab Labour Court No.l, whereby the transfer of Raza Muhammad, Assistant, Punjab Road Transport 'Corporation, Garden Town Depot, respondent No.4 herein, was quashed being unwarranted by service rules. It was further directed that Umar Hayat respondent No.l being the senior most clerk be considered for promotion as Assistant against the vacant post according to the Service Rules.

2. Briefly the facts are that Umar Hayat respondent N0.1 filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore, for withdrawing the order dated 23‑6‑1987 passed by Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, whereby Raza Muhammad respondent No.4 herein, who at the relevant time was posted at Garden Town (Urban) Depot against an existing vacancy of an Assistant. Respondent No.l also prayed for his promotion as Assistant against the said post. The Labbur Court accepted the petition vide order dated 26‑10‑1988, with the observation, "the transfer of Raza Muhammad as Assistant in the Garden Town Depot was not warranted by the service rules and law. It should be cancelled within one month of this order. The petitioner (Umar Hayat, respondent No.l herein) being the senior most clerk be considered as Assistant against this vacant post according to the service rules".

3. Mr. Muhammad Awais Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the transfer of Raza Muhammad, respondent No.4 herein, was made in the exigency of service and in accordance with the rules and the same was not liable to be interfered with through the impugned orders. He further contended that Raza Muhammad was not a party to the proceedings before the Labour Court as well as the Appellate Court and therefore, no order adversely affecting his interest should have been passed by the said Courts. I am not persuaded by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court as well as the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal after thorough scrutiny of the material placed before them, recorded a concurrent finding of fact that transfer of Raza Muhammad, respondent No.4 herein, was not justified. This was within their competence to which no exception can be taken. Further, the tenor of the impugned orders show that no order for promotion has been passed in favour of respondent No.l but merely a direction has been issued for considering his case for promotion in accordance with the service rules. Clearly this direction is unexceptional. As to the submission that Raza Muhammad was not a party to the proceedings, suffice it to say, that Raza Muhammad did not file any petition challenging the impugned orders before any competent forum. In any event he has been impleaded as a party to this petition. Notice was also issued to him but he failed to appear when this petition came up for hearing: It, therefore, appears that he is not interested in prosecuting this case. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.