WAPDA Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN
This appeal arises from the decision dated 28‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the appellant was directed to consider the respondent for promotion to Scale No. 17.
2. The case of the respondent is that he came in scale No. 16_ after qualifying departmental examination and thus is entitled to be promoted to Scale No. 17 but his those colleagues, who though are senior to him but they have not qualified departmental examination for getting Scale No. 16, were not entitled to promotion. This is true but his seniors have been promoted on the condition that they would pass the departmental examination for Scale No. 16. There is no evidence if examinations have been held and either they have not taken the said examination or have failed. The respondent claims to be senior also to the promoted persons, but in ‑the seniority list he is shown as junior and he never challenged the said list within time. .
3. It has been argued by the respondent that the appeal is timer barred. The date of decision of the .lower Court is 28‑4‑1981. But the appeal was presented on 13‑8‑1981 with copy of the lower Court's decision. Application for condonation of delay has also been given but the grounds given. are untrue. The ground is that application for copy was made to the lower Court on 30‑4‑1981 but in spite of reminders; no copy was supplied. On 27‑6‑1981 an application was given to the learned lower Court stating that on 30‑4‑1981 application for copy was given and if copy had been supplied to some employee of WAPDA, then duplicate copy be supplied and if so far no copy had been supplied, the .same be supplied on the previous application. The learned trial Judge‑ after getting report observed that copy .had ‑already been supplied on'8‑6‑1981 to the representative of WAPDA. Appeal is not time‑barred. Time for bringing appeal, no doubt, expired on 4‑7-1981 as the copy was supplied on 8‑6‑1981 on the application dated 30‑4‑1981 but at that time the appellate Court was not ‑ functioning. My learned predecessor had left on 31‑5‑.1981 and I took over, on 25‑8‑1981. The appeal, therefore, is not time -barred. .
4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned .lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.
Appeal dismissed.