' In this appeal the decision dated 12th June, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was dismissed.
2. Facts are that the appellant was appointed as Mistry in 1955. A scheme was introduced in 1958 to the effect that whoever from the mistries had passed the Trade Test examination he would be promoted as technicians. The appellant passed the said examination in 1967 and soon after that he was promoted as technician w. e. f. 26th July, 1966. The appellant claims his promotion as technician w. e. f. 1958, when the scheme was introduced. So far as his qualifying the trade test is concerned he says that he could sit in the examination and pass it if the department had allowed him. He says that before 1968 he was not sent to sit in the examination, therefore he was entitled to be promoted w. e. f.
1958.
3. In 1975 the appellant was further promoted as engineering supervisor but was reverted after about 4 months and in his place Mr. Amin, who is alleged to be junior to him was promoted on 21st May, 1975. The appellant was again promoted to the said post on 11th August, 1979. He claims that he should be treated as promoted w. e. f. 21st May, 1975 the date on which he was reverted. The learned trial Judge has remarked in his judgment that the appellant failed in the trade test in 1959, therefore, he was not promoted under the scheme in 1958 and was promoted thereafter w. e. f.
26th July, 1966 when he passed the examination. Akbar Ali Bajwa, establishment clerk appearing as D. W. 1 stated before the learned lower Court that the appellant was sent for training M. T.-1, course on 13th April, 1959 and he took training for three months but could not pass the examination having been declared as failed. He also stated that once the appellant has failed an embargo was imposed upon him disqualifying him for being sent for training again for one year. He also stated that the scheme was applicable on those persons who had passed course M. T.-1, and the courses M. T.-2-A and M. T. 2-B. The witness further stated that the appellant was promoted as technician under the scheme of 1966 when he had passed the course A-1 (a) on 13th February, 1966.
Regarding the post of engineering supervisor the witness deposed the appellant was sent on 1st July, 1968 for the said course but he could not qualify ; that he was again sent for the said course on 8th April, 1974 but on that occasion also he failed and that he was declared successful in the course on 23rd April, 1975 and that too as a mark of grace and thus became eligible for the post of engineering supervisor after 1975. He further said since no post was available he was promoted on 11th October, 1979. The witness in cross-examination denied the suggestion that the appellant was promoted as engineering supervisor on 23rd April, 1975. He also stated that no junior to the appellant was ever promoted to the said post.
4. D. W. I made statement without referring any record which means that he gave evidence from his own memory and knowledge. The appellant had made application before the learned lower Court on 21st November, 1979 for the summoning of record mentioning therein and the learned lower Court issued direction also to that effect but the record was not produced. Even no reply was given by the respondent. If record was not available the appellant was able to produce secondary evidence if the Court had allowed him. Services cases are always decided on the strength of documents and since the documents needed by the appellant were not produced, the decision of the learned lower Court is not sustainable.
5. As a result of the observation made above I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that the record required by the appellant be summoned and the case be redecided in the light of the documentary evidence produced by the parties. , Case remanded.