1993 PLC(CS) 553

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus CHAIRMAN, ZONAL MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, (DISTRICT CENTRAL), KARACHI

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1993 PLC(CS) 553

CourtSindh Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.Appeal No. KAR‑483 of 1992

Date1993-03-14

Judge(s)Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal

ResultAppeal dismissed

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the First Sindh Labour Court at Karachi by which the application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, was dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner was employed as a workman in the Horticulture Department of the former K.M.C. since August, 1984. It is alleged that because of educational qualifications, and also proficiency in his work as a gardener in which connection he was awarded certain certificates, he had been detailed to do the work of the Head Mali which was in Grade‑II. However, he was being neither given the grade nor the pay of the Head Mali though some Councillors had interceded in his behalf. Finding that his grievances were not being redressed, he had given a grievance notice and later followed it up by a petition before the Labour Court.

3. In the Written Reply filed by the respondents it was stated that the petitioner had been allowed to work in the capacity, as alleged, on his own request and he was not promoted to that post as he was not found qualified for the said job.

4. The petitioner was his own witness and Tauseef Zafar, Council Officer of the Z.M.C. (Central) and Abdul Ghafoor, Horticulturist of the Council appeared as witnesses of the respondent.

5. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by time. However there is more to it. Tauseef Zafar has stated that the matter of promotion came up earlier for the job of Head Mali. The appellant had also been interviewed by the Selection Board but he was not selected.

6. Admittedly the appellant had never been officially appointed as a Head Mali nor received the pay and the grade and he cannot come to the Court with a complaint that though qualified he had not been promoted. He had no vested right therein. His application under section 25‑A itself was incompetent and therefore I will uphold the order and dismiss the apply.

H.B.T./2182/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.