| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 1217 1995 SLD 1217 1995 PLC 382 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-257 of 1987/Pb., decided on 28th October, 1987.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFAOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. LHR-257 of 1987/Pb., decided on 28th October, 1987.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFAOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
GHULAM MUSTAFA
VS
GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25-A & 38(3)---Promotion cannot be claimed as a right---Discretion of employer---Employer can refuse promotion if workman was reasonably found not fit for promotion---Labour Court cannot direct employer to promote an employee---Employee has a right to be considered for promotion---Labour Court can direct consideration of employee for promotion if vacancy exists--Vacancy filled in by recall of previous incumbent from Leave Preparatory to Retirement---Grievance petition claiming promotion was dismissed by Labour Court---Order of Labour Court was upheld by Appellate Tribunal. (b) Industrial dispute ----Leave Preparatory to Retirement---Rules authorising Competent Authority to recall employee on. LPR---Employee on LPR, held, can request Competent Authority to exercise such power, in his favour---Plea that recall from LPR of employee on his request could not be made, held, was fallacious. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25-A & 38(3)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14---Limitation--Condonation of delay---Time spent in Court not having jurisdiction, held, could be excluded provided proceedings were brought with bona fide intention and due diligence---Law being well-known regarding exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Court, matter taken up in suit before Civil Court would not authorise Labour Court to -condone delay---Period spent before Civil Court, in circumstances, could not be excluded. S.M. Nazim for Appellant. Ch. Bashir Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. S.A. Latif for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1987. JUDGMENT This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 20-7-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2. The facts are that respondent No. 3 Mr. Qamar Din who was Tin Smith Mistry was granted LPR for 325 days and he proceeded on leave on 2nd May, 1984. In the vacancy caused thereby Ejaz Ahmed was promoted who retired on 15-9-1984. Before the retirement of Ejaz Ahmed, Qamar Din, respondent No. 3 had applied for the cancellation of his remaining…
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