' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.---This judgment will govern disposal of both the above appeals as points of law and facts are identical in both the cases. In both the appeals, the appellants are LS-I in the Multan Electric Power Company, Multan (hereinafter described as MEPCO). Both the appellants have claimed that they were entitled to be considered for promotion as Junior Engineer (BS-17) in the next meeting of the Promotion Board constituted by MEPCO. It was added that the respondents maliciously and designedly omitted to implead them as respondents in their grievance petitions. Since they have been directly affected by the outcome of the these judgments passed by the learned Labour Court they have, therefore, every right of appeal against the said judgments.
2. They have challenged the following orders which affected them adversely:---
(1) Order dated 10-4-2009 passed in Grievance Petition No,297 of ' 2009 titled Iftikhar Ahmed v.
MEPCO.
(2) Order dated 25-4-2009 passed in Grievance Petition No,504 of 2009 titled Abdul Rauf v. MEPCO.
(3) Order dated 9-3-2009 passed in the Grievance Petition No,79 of 2009 titled Tanveer Akhtar v.
MEPCO.
3. The case of Mr. Muhammad Saeed is being taken up.
4. The facts in this case, briefly, are that he was posted as LS-I at Satellite Town Sub-Division, Burewala. In the tentative seniority list issued by the Department, he figured at Serial No,2 and even otherwise was fully qualified to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer BS-17.
The respondents had deliberately omitted to implead him and procured the order for their consideration to be promoted in the next meeting of Promotion Board which was contrary to the factual and legal position and was in violation of their rights and the rules of the department. In the petition filed by Abdul Rauf respondent on 20-4-2009 the MEPCO had filed their objections questioning the maintainability of the petition, inter alia, on the following grounds:---
(a) that he was not a workman and could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court;
(b) that no claim could be entertained on the basis of tentative seniority list as such the grievance petition was premature;
(c) that no grievance notice was served on the respondents as such the grievance petition was not maintainable on this ground alone.
' On merits they claimed that the promotion to BS-17 was to be given on the basis of seniority-cum fitness and the Board was prepared to consider each one's case accordingly as and when their turn came.
5. In this case the learned lower Court appears to have proceeded in an unholy haste. The grievance petition was filed on 20-4-2009, the respondents were directed to file their reply on 25- 4-2009. Without properly considering their objections which could have been decided only after recording of evidence, the learned lower Court rushed to grant the relief to the petitioners on the same day. This undue haste coupled with circumvention of the procedure appears to have vitiated the whole process.
6. The factual and legal position in other cases being identical, the objections raised by the department merited to be considered properly. All the matters have been treated casually and the record does not show that the lower Court judiciously exercised its discretion in coming to the proper conclusion to resolve the issues. Ex facie the duties of LS-I appear to be that of superintendence i.e, the nature of managerial and supervisory capacity. This was the most essential element in determining the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and try the case.
This having not been done, the case merits to be reheard.
7. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of each case. Firstly the appellants have asserted that they were kept in dark about the filing of the grievance petitions and coming to know of the adverse decisions, they have hurried to file appeals.
8. In the appeal filed by Muhammad Rashid-ur-Rehman, another LS-I posted at Construction Sub- Division, Bahawalpur the objections of the respondents have been overlooked in identical way and without deciding whether the respondents (grievance petitions before the Labour Court) come within the definition of "workman" and were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, they have been granted relief straightaway.
9. Without digging deep into the merits of the case, it appears, fair, just and proper to remand the case to the learned lower Court with a direction to decide the matters afresh after taking into consideration all the points/objections raised by the respondent-Department. The learned lower Court shall provide fair opportunities to all the parties to lead their evidence in support of their respective contentions and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
10. Consequently, both the appeals are accepted and the cases are remanded as indicated above.
11. As for the application submitted by Mr. Zafar Iqbal son of Muhammad Ramzan Line Superintendent Grade-I, Muslim Colony, Sub-Division MEPCO, Haroon Abad District Bahawal Nagar under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Seeking permission for becoming a party to the instant appeals, since the cases have been remanded to the learned lower Court, the applicant may approach the said Court and seek relief as per law.