Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1965 2007 SLD 1965 2007 PLC 534
Lahore High Court
Labour Appeal No.217 of 2005, decision dated: 13-07-2006.
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J

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

MANAGING DIRECTOR PRTC end 8 others

VS

MEHMOOD AHMAD MANAGING DIRECTOR PRTC end 8 others vs MEHMOOD AHMAD

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)-------Ss. 46 & 48---Promotion---Entitlement to---Grievance petition---Appeal to High Court---Case of employee as set out in grievance petition was that he was appointed as Foreman and according to him he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Works Manager under Recruitment of Staff and Promotion Rules, 1976---Validity---Employees who were junior to respondent were promoted but respondent was neither considered for promotion nor reasons for his supersession were communicated to him, despite post of Assistant Works .Manager was lying vacant---Grievance petition by respondent having been accepted by the Labour Court, appeal had been filed against the same---Contention of employer was that employee was not matriculate and for that reason he was not considered for promotion---Employee though was senior most employee in his cadre, but he was under matric, whereas basic qualification for promotion to Assistant Works Manager as per Recruitment of Staff and Promotion Rules, 1976, was Matric---Impugned order of Labour Court, was set aside in circumstances, with the result that grievance petition by employee, was dismissed. Dr. Muhammad Hussain v. Principal Ayub Medical College and another PLD 2003 SC 143 and Chandrigarh Administration v. Jagit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705 ref. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellants. Muhammad Khalid Farooq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th July, 2006: JUDGMENT SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The case of the respondent as set out in grievance petition was that respondent was appointed as Foreman and according to him, he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Works Manager (AWM) wider the Staff Promotion Rules, 1959. Appellant was given charge of AWM on work charge basis. The employees who were junior to him were promoted as AWM but the appellant was neither considered for promotion, nor reasons for his supersession were communicated to him. Post of AWM fell vacant on resignation of Muhammad Afzal Awan. Appellant was not appointed against the vacancy which resulted into issuance of grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition before Labour Court. Petition was contested by the appellant, who…
🔒
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