' 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 Conductor in G.T. S. Faisalabad on 15th October, 1959. He was promoted to the post of Booking Clerk on 12th October, 1969 on the basis of a settlement, dated 27th December 1969 entered into between the respondent management and R. T. C. Employees Union. 100% vacancies were to be filled in the subordinate cadre from service. The appellant claims that according to the said settlement he should have been promoted but was ignored and his juniors namely Muhammad Adil and Muhammad Jalal Booking Clerks were promoted. 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. The grievance of the appellant is not that any direct appointment was made but his grievance is that he was superseded by his juniors.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 before 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 rules adverse remarks are to be conveyed to person concerned and without that he cannot be censured. This is true but the appellant in his statement admitted that he has been given warnings. This is not the case of the appellant that be had applied against the orders by which he was censured or warnings were given to him, therefore, those orders stand. Since he was given warnings and he had come to know that there were bad remarks in his record. Even the bad remarks can be considered while deciding the question of punishment but the appellant was even punished with warnings. Needless to say that the promotion is made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and senior persons can be ignored if there are bad remarks and their work is found unsatisfactory. It was opened to the appellant to challenge the punishment or warnings but they were rightly issued against him by considering his case for punishment. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that application was given to the Labour Court for summoning the service record of his juniors who were made to supersede him but the service record was not produced by the respondent. He says that it was to be shown to the Court that two persons who had been made to supersede the appellant, had also been reverted. The service record of the appellant only was material which is on the record and is R. I. If there had been no adverse entries in the record of the appellant and in spite of it he had been ignored, therefore, it could be the relevancy of the service record of his juniors who were made to supersede to him. The service record of the' appellant shows that he were warned 20 times and censured 10 times. Once he was dismissed from service w. e. f. 7th May, 1963 but his revision was accepted by the Chairman and he was reinstated. In view of such a bad record he was rightly ignored.
In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition.
As a result of the observation made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss it.