DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of VIIth Labour Court, Sukkur, on 17th February, 1983 he dismissed the grievance petition of Muhammad Ayub Chandio, the appellant.
2. Muhammad Ayub Chandio, according to the petition, was appointed as Road Mate on 2nd June, 1972 on work-charged basis in the Highway Division No, I, Larkana and was shifted to Division No, Larkana, on its creation. The plea of the appellant is that he was promoted as a Road Mistri on 12th June, 1974 and continued to be so till the petition was filed. One, Haji Owais, was appointed as Road Mate on 1st July, 1975 on work-charged basis in the Highway Division No, 1, Larkana. Accordingly the appellant claims that he was senior to Haji Owais. Haji Owais was confirmed on 3rd April, 1982.
Aggrieved, the appellant gave a grievance notice to the respondents on 16th May, 1982, but since he did not receive any reply he filed the grievance petition. He prayed therein that it may be declared that Haji Owais was junior to him and the orders passed by the respondents were null and void.
3. Respondent No, III filed written reply on 13th September, 1982 on this behalf and on behalf of other respondents. The respondent's plea is that the appellant worked as a work taker from 14th June, 1972 in the Highway Division No, I and not as a Road Mate. The appellant left the Highway Division No, I and got fresh appointment on 12th June, 1974 in the Highway Division No, II. There was no shifting from Division No, I to Division No, H as the Highway Division No, H, Larkana, was created in May, 1973. The appellant got fresh appointment in Division No, II as his seniority in Highway Division No, II is not maintainable. Even, otherwise the petition is not maintainable as no guaranteed right is infringed.
4. The Labour Court examined Muhammad Ayub Chandio. Respondents examined Roshan Ali, respondent No, 4.
5. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. Neither the appellant nor his Advocate is present, though served.
6. The order, dated 14th June, 1972 was produced, and it mentions that appellant was appointed as Work-taker and not as Road Mate. Similarly, he was not transferred from Highway Division No, I to '
Highway Division No, H. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that Highway Division No, II was created in the year 1973. The order, dated 12th June, 1974 is produced as Exh. 1-A which indicates that the appellant was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Highway Division No, II, Larkana. It is, therefore, clear that it was a fresh appointment. The contention of respondent is that the seniority list of the workers and of the Mistris is maintained separately in each Division. The evidence as disclosed in the impugned order seems to be correct and there cannot be any difference.
7. The next contention of the Advocate for the respondents is that Haji Owais was not joined as a party. In support of his contention has produced unreported authority of this Tribunal in Appeal No, SUK92/76 in the case of Ghulam Hyder v. Chief Engineer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and others. This Tribunal observed as under :- "The application made under section 25-A of the I. R.
0., itself suffered from serious infirmity as the persons against whom seniority was claimed were not impleaded although they are necessary party. In their absence the application could not proceed or dealt with on merits. Since the application was not maintainable, the appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed summarily."
8. It is to be noted that according to section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, the worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any Award or settlement for the time being in force. It appears that the right of seniority is not guaranteed to the appellant nor it is secured by any law, award or settlement. This right is entirely the right with the department concerned who may or may not promote the appellant on consideration of the work or the satisfactory work, as they deem fit. Promotion is not at guaranteed right.
9. I find that this appeal has no force and the same is dismissed.