1. ' This appeal arises from the order, dated 14th July, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition for direction to the respondent to promote the appellant as Assistant Depot Superintendent w. e. f. 21st October, 1978 was dismissed.
2. The appellant was appointed as Booking Clerk in G. T. S., Faisalabad on 28th October, 1969. 100% vacancies were to be filled in the subordinate cadre from service. The appellant claims that according to settlement arrived at between the respondent management and R.. T. C. Employees Union he should have been promoted but ignored and two persons junior to him were promoted.
2. There was a condition in the settlement that if there was no suitable person to be promoted to any post in the subordinate cadre, the vacancy would be filled in by direct appointment from outside.
3. The grievance of the appellant is not that any direct appointment was made but his grievance is that he was superseded by his juniors. The stand taken by the respondent in the lower Court was that the record of the appellant was bad, therefore, he was ignored. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the record adverse remarks are to be conveyed to person concerned and without that he cannot be censured. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is not without force that adverse entries cannot be used against the employee concerned unless they are conveyed to him. The service record R. I. Does not show that the adverse remarks by which the appellant was warned and censured were conveyed to him. There are no signatures of the appellant against such remarks. The respondent did not produce any evidence to the effect that the punishment of warnings and censure were conveyed to the appellant. The appellant admitted only that when he made representation he was told that on account of bad remarks he had not been promoted. The information that he had bad record does not amount conveying the adverse entries. The information was also not in details. Every adverse entry alongwith the reason for which it was recorded are to be conveyed. If the appellant had been informed about the adverse entries in the punishment of warnings and censure he would have an opportunity to challenge them. Since they were not conveyed to him he was caught unaware when promotion was refused to him So, the entries without being conveyed to him cannot be used against him. Since the copy of his service record is on the file in the shape of R. I. Now the appellant has come to know about the bad entries and if he fails to challenge them in future the may be used against him.
4. ' I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned lower Court directing the respondent to consider the case of the appellant for promotion for any existing vacancy or the first vacancy in future.