' This is an appeal preferred against the decision, dated 12th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The appellant sought promotion to the post of Assistant Works Manager on the basis of a settlement of 1969, copy Exh. P.
3. According to the appellant, the said post belongs to 'subordinate cadre'. 100 per cent vacancies in the posts were to be filled in by promotion. The appellant felt aggrieved when Mr. Iftikhar Alam and Iftikhar-ud-Din were directly appointed as Assistant Works Managers vide orders Exh. P. 1, dated 16th August, 1980 and Exh. P. 2, dated 4th April, 1982, respectively. Yet another person namely Muhammad Akram Khokhar was appointed as Store Officer on 15th July, 1980 vide order Exh. P.
5. The learned lower Court held that the post of A. W. M. Did not belong to subordinate cadre and the grievance notice was wrongly served upon the Managing Director. The 'employer' according to the learned lower Court was the Director Technical. Much stress has been laid upon the words 'his employer' occurring in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The said words do not necessarily connote the appointing or dismissing authority. The 'employer' is defined in section 2(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to which, many person are included in the definition and not only a person competent to appoint or dismiss. Any person who comes within the definition of 'employer 'I can be given a grievance notice if he had some control over the employee concerned. The word 'his' connotes a person who has some connection by way of controlling or supervising the employee concerned. In the presen case the grievance notice was given to the authority who was competent t hear appeals from the orders of the Director Technical, 1982 SC MR 651 and 1982 PLC 20 may be cited with great advantage in this respect. So the grievance notice sent to the- Managing Director was a proper one. The learned lower Court wrongly held that it was not served upon the employer. Since the appointing authority for the post of A. W. M. Is the Managing Director and since the appellant challenged the direct appointments to the said posts, for this reason also the grievance notice was rightly served upon the Managing Director.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition was time-barred, so far as respondents, Nos, 2 and 3 are concerned. Firstly, since no cross-objections have been filed, the respondents cannot raise such a point and secondly, there is no evidence that the appellant got information about the direct appointment of respondents Nos, 2 and 3 just at the time they were appointed as A. W. Ms. So the petition was not time barred.
4. So far as this question is concerned, whether or not the posts of A. W. M. And Accounts Officer belong to 'subordinate cadre' there is no evidence with regard to the duties and functions to be performed by such officers. If this term was to be used in the settlement, copy Exh. P. 3, it should have been explained. In demand No, 6 the posts that were required to be filled in by 100 per cent promotion are specified. The posts of A. W. M. And Store Officers are not mentioned therein. In item No, 6 of-the settlement posts are not described but it is said that vacancies in the posts belonging to 'subordinate cadre' would be filled in by cent per cent promotion. It cannot be presumed that the management that was opposing the demands became prepared to give more than what was demanded. Since the said posts were not mentioned in demand No, 6, the intention was that vacancies in the said posts should not be filled in by 100 per cent promotion. In appeals Nos, Lhr- 614/81-Pb. And Lhr669/81-Pb. .1 have held that the posts of A. W. M: does not belong to subordinate cadre. As the posts of A. W. M. And Store Officers are not mentioned in the demand, they do, not belong to subordinate cadre and the learned lower Court has rightly held so. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed photostat of judgment dated 6th October, 1982 of this Tribunal. By mistake it is mentioned therein that the post of A. W. M. Is mentioned in demand '1o.
6. The copy of the demands in present case is Exh. P.
4. In Demand No, 6 the posts of A. W. M. And Store Officers are not mentioned. In the judgment referred to above it was held that 100% promotion can be claimed in respect of those posts that are mentioned in demand No,
6. Since by mistake in the said judgment it was said that the posts of A. W. M. Are mentioned in demand No, 6, the observation does not benefit the appellant.
5. As a result, the appeal has no substance and is hereby dismissed.