DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS), PUTC Versus RIAZ KHALID
The decision dated 17‑3‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab. Labour Court No.l, Lahore has been challenged in the appeal captioned above, whereby the order of demotion recorded against the respondent was set aside.
2. The respondent was in 1981 promoted as Superintendent, Establishment Branch, Central Workshop in officiating capacity. He was later on 31‑5‑1984 regularly promoted by the order of acting Manager, Central Workshop. On 1‑11‑1984 the Director (Operations) PUTC advised the acting Manager, Central Workshop to cancel the order of promotion and accordingly on 6‑11‑1984 the respondent was demoted. He aggrieved of the order brought a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, from the decision of which present appeal emerges. The main attack of the appellants is that the acting Manager Central Workshop was not competent to order promotion of the respondent.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that vide delegation of powers Exhs.P.6/1 and 2 the principal officers were authorised to promote persons upto NPS‑15 and that since the acting Manager Central Workshop does not come within the category of principal officers, he was not competent to promote the respondent and, therefore the Director (Operations) had rightly asked him to withdraw the order of promotion The argument has no force. According to para. 13 of Exh.P.5/11, the Manager Central Workshop has been given all administrative powers which have been given to other class 19 officers. The word 'other' shows that the Manager Central Workshop also belongs to scale No.19. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the said officer belongs to scale No.18. If his scale had been No.18 then the word 'other' would not have been used. The other thing is that the delegation of powers was made post-wise and not gradewise. Whoever holds the post of Manager Central Workshop, he gets the same powers which other class 19 officers enjoy. Exh.P.5/1/11 item No.l further shows that the post of Manager Central Workshop belongs to grade No.19. The learned counsel for the appellants have also argued that an application for additional evidence was given to the learned lower Court for ;roving that the post of 'Manager Central Workshop did not belong to grade No.19 but the Court did not give any opportunity. This is wrong. Application for additional evidence no doubt was given but it is evident from the order dated 11‑i‑1987 that the said application was not pressed. It is, therefore, wrong that the Manager Central Workshop was not competent to promote the respondent.
4. However, this is not clear if the respondent was senior most or that all his seniors had before him been promoted. He was made to give the test but result was not announced. The respondent nowhere stated that he had passed the test or that he was the senior most at the time he was regularly promoted. The learned lower Court did not advert to the question of seniority‑cum‑fitness and thus, fell in error in passing an unconditional order of the promotion of the respondent.
5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to re‑examine the case of promotion of the respondent. The promotion will be of course according to seniority‑cum‑fitness. If the respondent is the senior most and fit for promotion, the order of promotion will remain intact.
A. E. /360/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.