Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1005 2017 SLD 1005 2017 PLJ 119
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Labour Appeal No. 4 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016. Date of hearing: 29.11.2016.
JUSTICE (R) SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Muhammad Ayoub Khan, DDA for Appellants. Mr. Athar Aziz Choudhry, Advocate for
Respondent.

DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE MECHANIZATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE (AMRI), MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS --AppellantS

VS

KHALID SHABBIR MECHANIC - --RespondentS

Law:

Section:

Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010-- ----S. 33--Appointment as mechanic against regular and permanent vacancy--Right to be promoted in place allowed grievance petition of other employee--Promoted on seniority cum fitness--Entitled for promotion--Promotion on basis of Rules, 1997 amended rules--No retrospective effect--Validity--Civil servant claimed alleged right subsequent to enactment of 2011 Rules--Judgment passed by trial Court is a result of misapplication of law and facts, thus is not sustainable in eyes of law--Appeal was allowed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: JUSTICE (R) SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, CHAIRMAN:---.--- The respondent Khalid Shabbir filed grievance petition u/S. 33 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 mentioning the facts that he initially was appointed as Mechanic on 16.08.1984 in BPS-07 against a regular and permanent vacancy and he had been performing duties since then in honest and diligent manner; that Riaz Ahmed Foreman retired on 16.08.2007 and the respondent/grievance petitioner Khalid Shabbir had the right to be promoted in his place; that the learned trial Court allowed the grievance petition of one Muhammad Sarwar S/o Aleem-ud-Din on 12.08.2013 with the direction to be promoted as Test Bench Fitter, hence according to the 1993 Rules as 50% quota was reserved for Mechanic/ Fitter to be promoted on seniority-cum-fitness basis, therefore accordingly the respondent was entitled for said promotion; that he issued grievance notice on 24.08.2013 which was replied by the appellants on 28.08.2013 refusing to accept his demand, hence prayed that direction be issued for his *promotion as prayed for. 2. This grievance petition was replied by the appellants raising four preliminary objections about its maintainability, firstly about the maintainability of the petition having been filed without jurisdiction to the trial Court and secondly that according to the 1993 Rules amended on 26.11.2011 a Matriculate only can be promoted from Technical staff of BPS-07 as Foreman in BPS-11 and as the respondent did not possess such qualification, hence was not entitled for promotion. Prayed that the grievance petition be dismissed. 3. The learned trial Court…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492