1993 PLP 553 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE CHAIRMAN, ZONAL MUNICIPAL COMITTEE, (DISTRICT CENTRAL),
| Citation | 1993 PLP 553 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE CHAIRMAN, ZONAL MUNICIPAL COMITTEE, (DISTRICT CENTRAL), |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 553 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 553 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 553 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE CHAIRMAN, ZONAL MUNICIPAL COMITTEE, (DISTRICT CENTRAL),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Siddiq Malik for Appellant.
- M. Zaman Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Grievance of employee in his petition was that he was employed as a workman, but later on because of his educational qualifications and also proficiency in his work he was detailed to do work of Head Mali‑‑‑Employee had alleged that he was neither given grade nor pay of Head Mali‑‑‑Employer stated that employee was allowed to work in capacity of Head Mali on his own request and was not promoted to that post as he was not found qualified for said job by Selection Board which had interviewed employee‑‑‑Employee who had never been officially appointed as a Head Mali nor he had received pay and grade thereof, could not come to Court with a complaint that he had vested right therein‑‑‑Grievance petition of employee was rightly dismissed by Trial Court being incompetent.
Judgment & Decree
M. Zaman Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1993. This appeal calls in question the order of the First Sindh Labour Court at Karachi by which the application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, was dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was employed as a workman in the Horticulture Department of the former K.M.C. since August, 1984. It is alleged that because of educational qualifications, and also proficiency in his work as a gardener in which connection he was awarded certain certificates, he had been detailed to do the work of the Head Mali which was in Grade‑II. However, he was being neither given the grade nor the pay of the Head Mali though some Councillors had interceded in his behalf. Finding that his grievances were not being redressed, he had given a grievance notice and later followed it up by a petition before the Labour Court.
3. In the Written Reply filed by the respondents it was stated that the petitioner had been allowed to work in the capacity, as alleged, on his own request and he was not promoted to that post as he was not found qualified for the said job.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Tauseef Zafar, Council Officer of the Z.M.C. (Central) and Abdul Ghafoor, Horticulturist of the Council appeared as witnesses of the respondent.
5. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by time. However there is more to it. Tauseef Zafar has stated that the matter of promotion came up earlier for the job of Head Mali. The appellant had also been interviewed by the Selection Board but he was not selected.
6. Admittedly the appellant had never been officially appointed as a Head Mali nor received the pay and the grade and he cannot come to the Court with a complaint that though qualified he had not been promoted. He had no vested right therein. His application under section 25‑A itself was incompetent and therefore I will uphold the order and dismiss the apply. H.B.T./2182/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.