The appellant, who at the relevant time was serving in the S.R.T.C., the respondents herein, as Traffic Supervisor, feels aggrieved against the order, dated 7th June, 1981, of-' the Chairman, S.R.T.C., promoting certain officials, of the S.T.R.C. 3 of whom, according to the appellant are junior to him, as Station Superintendents, ignoring his seniority. It is an admitted position that on 14th June, 1981, the appellant sub--mitted, what he described as his appeal to Chairman, S. R. T. C He was informed, vide letter, dated 15th November, 1981, that the selection of officials for promotion to the rank of Station Superintendent was made on the recommendation of the Board constitu--ted for the purpose and hence his appeal, was rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal, the appellant preferred a grievance petition to the learned VIth Labour Court after service of a grievance notice, dated 19th October, 1981
2. The learned VIth Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition by its decision, given on 29th April, 1982, on the ground that the grievance notice served by the appellant is time-barred. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
3. It was strongly contended by Mr. Wahid Bux that the appellant was not only senior to respondents Zafarullah, Gul Muhammad Baloch and Ghulam Qadir, but had also previously acted for some time as Station Superintendent. Although the learned counsel was unable to cite any rule indicating a right on the part of an employee to prefer a departmental appeal against his non- selection for a promotion post, he submitted that the very fact that his appeal was entertained by the Chair--man, S.R.T.C., though it was rejected by him establishes that a right of appeal exists.
4. Admittedly the promotion of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and -5 and the other officials was ordered by the letter, dated 9th June, 1981. If the grievance of the appellant arose on the issuance of the said order, his grievance notice, which is dated 19th October, 1981, would, be time-- barred. This is the view which has been taken by the learned Labour Court . However, it was contended by Mr. Wahid Bux that his grievance was not against the original order promoting the respondents to the rank of Station Superintendent. But the rejection of his appeal, which was communicated to him vide the letter, dated 15th November, 1981. But if this was the grievance of the appellant, he should have served a grievance notice .In respect of it upon the employer. It is an admitted position that no grievance notice in respect of the rejection of his appeal was preferred by the appellant. As such, either the departmental appeal, dated 14th June, 1981, is to be treated as a grievance notice or alternatively the grievance petition was filed without a proper grievance notice an respect of the rejection of his appeal. On either view of the matter, the grievance petition does not appear to be maintainable..
5. There is a stronger ground for the rejection of the appeal of the appellant.In his appeal dated, 14 June 1981, the appellant has himself stated that the criteria for the promotion of the rank of Station Superintendent was seniority-cum-efficiency. In the case reported as West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v.
Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi (1976 PLC 3), a learned Single Judge of the High Court has held that where the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-fitness, promotion could not be claimed on the basis of seniority alone and further the question of fitness, was within the sore jurisdiction of the employer to decide.
A similar view was taken in the case reported as Muttaqqi-A Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind (PLD 1978 Kar.703). In chat case, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, I had held that even in the case of a non-selection post, seniority alone will not entitle a person for promotion, as even in such case, ;he basis of promotion is seniority-cum-fitness and fitness can appro--priately be determined only by the competent administrative authority.
6. For the reason discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.