SHER MUHAMMAD Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE

Sher Muhammad has filed this appeal from the decision of Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, dated 7th of March, 1992, whereby his grievance petition was dismissed.

2. The appellant joined Punjab Road Transport Corporation as a Junior Clerk in the year 1961. He was promoted as a Senior Clerk on 1st of December, 1975. He was due for Selection Grade with effect from 1st of July, 1987. However, vide order dated ‑22nd of September, 1988 (Exh. P.3) issued by the Director (P&A), Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore the case for the grant of the Selection Grade to the appellant was deferred and his two juniors namely Mr. Muhammad Hyat and Mr. Muhammad Arshad were placed in the Selection Grade with effect from 1st of July, 1987. The appellant was ignored for the Selection Grade on the ground that he had earned adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs. for the years 1985 and 1986. These adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 29th of August, 1987 (Exh. P.l) on 5th of September, 1987. The appellant submitted a representation (Exh. P.2) to the Director Administration, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, through proper channel for the expunction of the adverse remarks. However, no decision was taken on this representation till the issuance of the order, dated 22nd of September, 7988 (Exh. P.3) deferring his case for the grant of the Selection Grade. The appellant submitted an appeal for the expunction of the adverse remarks and grant of the Selection Grade. This appeal was forwarded by the District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Depot No. 2, Faisalabad to the Director Administration, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore vide letter, dated 19th of December, 1988 (Exh. P.5). On 16th of March, 1989 the Deputy Director (Administration), Punjab Road Transport Corporation in Lahore informed the District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Corporation Depot No. 2, Faisalabad vide letter (Exh.P.6) that the appellant was ignored due to unsatisfactory A.C.Rs. for the years 1985 and 1986 and that his request for expunction of adverse remarks was being examined. The Deputy Director (Administration), Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore intimated the District Manager, Punjab Road Transport, Corporation, Depot No. 2, Faisalabad vide letter, dated 26th of February, 1991 (Exh. P.10) that the appeal of the appellant for the grant of the Selection Grade with effect from 1st of July, 1987 had been considered "and regretted by the competent Authority". Meanwhile, however, the appellant was granted Selection Grade with effect from 1st of January, 1990 vide order, dated 7th of May, 1990 (Exh. P.8). After serving grievance notice (Exh. P.11) on 24th of March, 1991, the appellant filed a grievance petition on 13th of April, 1991 for the expunction of the adverse remarks and grant of the Selection Grade in BPS No.9 with effect from 1st of July, 1987 instead of 1st of January, 1991. He contended that since the adverse remarks were communicated to him after an inordinate delay and were without any basis, the same could not affect the grant of the Selection Grade to him with effect from 1st of July, 1987; especially when the representation submitted by him against the adverse remarks continued to remain undecided.

3. The respondents contested the grievance petition. According to them, the appellant was rightly ignored for the Selection Grade with effect from 1st of July, 1987 on the basis of adverse remarks in his A.C.Rs. for the years 1985 and 1986.

4. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 in support of his case. In rebuttal Asad Ali, Superintendent entered into the witness‑box as R.W.1. After appraising the evidence, the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition observing that the adverse remarks were not tantamount to infringement of any right of the appellant and he could not complain against the grant of Selection Grade to him from 1st of January, 1990 instead of 1st of July, 1987.

5. I have heard the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. I agree with learned counsel for the respondents that late communication of adverse remarks did not ispo facto render them ineffective and inconsequential. However, this is not the only grievance of the appellant. His further grievance is that the adverse remarks were baseless and that they could not be used against him without adverse decision on hr's representation for their expunction. This grievance is not without substance. The evidence brought on record does not in any manner justify the adverse remarks. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 that during the years 1985 and 1986 his explanation was never called for and his work and conduct was never adversely commented upon. This testimony remained un rebutted. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the adverse remarks were without any E basis was fully substantiated. ‑It is also a fact that the representation of the appellant against the adverse remarks was not decided one way or the other till he was ignored for the grant of the Selection Grade from the due date. It is not controverted that no one can be penalised on the basis of adverse remarks till the decision of his representation for their expunction. Therefore, the order dated 22nd of September, 1988 (Exh. P.3) ignoring the appellant for the grant of the Selection Grade with effect from 1st of July, 1987 is not sustainable.

6. In the result, this appeal is accepted, the impugned decision is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant Selection Grade in BPS No. 9 to the appellant with effect from 1st of July, 1987.

H.B.T./753/Lb.P

Appeal accepted.