By 'h settlement arrived at on 6th November, 1978, between the Karachi Transport Corporation, the respondents herein, and the Workers' Union in the said Corporation, certain demands of the Workers' Union were agreed to, one of which was that appointments by promotion in the Corporation would be made on the principle of seniority-cure-fitness. The case of the three appellants is that though they are the senior most Inspectors in the Corporation and have been recommended for promo--tion by their immediate superiors, they have not been promoted and instead their juniors have been promoted and they have been ignored. The appellants accordingly filed separate grievance petioions before the learned IVth Labour Court praying that a direction be issued to the respondent Corporation to promote them to the rank of Station Superin--tendent in Grade 12 and also to award them wages in that grade from the date that they were due for such promotion. The respondent Corporation resisted the grievance petitions of the appellants on the main ground that the appellants were not found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The learned Labour Court relying upon the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1966 PLC 449) and the unreported decision of this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Latif Moghal v. Pakistan Herald (Appeal No. IAA R-86 of 1980), upheld the contention of the respondent Corporation and dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants with the observation that promotion is not the vested right of a workman but it is a privilege of the management. Aggrieved by the said decision, the three appellants have filed separate appeals to this Tribunal which have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2. It was contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed that not only' were the ap--pellants the senior most Inspectors in the respondent Corporation, but further, as appears from the Chart of the Inspectors considered for pro--motion to the rank of Station Superintendent, they were found suitable for promotion and recommended for promotion by their immediate superior, the District Manager. '
3. It may be pointed out that the settlement of 1978 only provided for following of the principle of seniority-cum-fitness in making promo--tions. As such alongwith seniority-cum-fitness had to be considered. It appears from the evidence of G. A. Shah Bokbari, Traffic Manager in the respondent Corporation who was examined before the learned Labour Court, that a Departmental Promotion Committee was set up in the Corporation for examining cases of employees eligible for promotion, that he was one of the members of that Committee, that the Committee had considered the case of the; three appellants .Alongwith cases of other candidates on 29th September, 1980 and had also interviewed them, but had not considered tote appellants fit for promotion, as they had insuffi--cient educational qualifications, being non-matriculates, and hence had not recommended them for promotion. The minutes of the Department Promotion Committee, which were approved by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, have been produced and they speak for themselves. It was categorically denied by the witness that any meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 6th November, 1980, as claimed by the appellants.
4. Since promotions to the rank of Station Superintendent were to be made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Com--mittee and as the said Committee considered the educational qualifica--tions of the appellants insufficient for promotion and the appellants unfit for promotion, and as recommendations of the Committee were approved by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, I am unable to see what vested right of the appellants had been violated. This immediate superiors of the appellants were not the competent authority to judge the fitness of the appellants for promotion and hence theft recommendations that the appellants were suitable for promotion did no clothe the appellants with a vested right to promotion. The appellant had only the right to be considered for promotion and they were duly considered for promotion but were rejected as not fit for promotion.
5. In the case of Muttaqqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind (PLD 1978 Kar.703), I as a Judge of the Karachi High Court, examined the scrape and con--notation of the principle "seniority-cum- fitness", which is commonly adopted for promotion in service matters. In that case, after an exhaustive review of the case law on the question whether promotion could be demanded by a civil servant as of right, it was observed as follows :- "It may be pointed out that mere seniority, even in the case of non-selection post, will not entitle a person to promotion, as even in such cases the basis of promotion is seniority-cam-fitness, and fitness can appropriately be determined only by the competent Administrative Authority. However, the right to be considered for promotion, where a person is eligible for promotion is a vested right and if the eligible person is not considered for promotion, or a person not otherwise qualified under the rules, is promoted illegally or against the rules, in such a case the aggrieved person can enforce his right to be considered for promotion or object to the person not qualified for promotion being promoted. Through a civil suit or by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of the superior Courts, since this matter is not within the preview of the Services Tribunal."
6. Reference may also be made to the following observations made by this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Latif Moghal which have been relied upon by the learned Labour Court :- "promotion, however, is required to be made on the basis of seniority---cum-fitness. This is a well- recgonized principle in service matters and both the requirements of seniority as well as fitness have to be taken into consideration while making promotions. In any case, the question of fitness for promotion of an employee for a particular post is a matter solely within the competence of the management and it is neither appropriate nor even permissible for this Tribunal or the Labour Courts to usurp this right of the management. In fact I would like to frankly concede that the Labour Courts are not qualified to pronounce upon the fitness of a particular person to hold a particular post "
7. In view of the principles enunciated in the above decision and the reasons discussed I am of the view that there is no merit in any of these appeals. I would accordingly, dismissed all the 3 appeals in limine.