' This complaint has been filed by Muhammad Nawaz, Conductor, Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Abpara Sub-Depot, Islamabad against Amanullah Khan, District Manager, P. U. T. C.
And Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Lahore under section 15/53 and 22-B (3)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for having ignored the complainant and his; six colleagues for promotion to the post of Time Checker being the active members of the P. U. T. C. Workers Union, so as to favour the members of the rival P. I. A. M. Union (C. B. A.) without considering their seniority and against the Punjab Road Transport Board Recruitment and Promotion of Staff Rules. A stay application alongwith the complaint has also been moved praying therein for suspension of promotion order, dated 5th October, 1983.
2. The facts leading to the case are that :
(i) Respondents in pursuance of Promotion Committee meeting held on 4th October, 1983 promoted six conductors as Time-Checkers by ignoring the complaint and declaring him unfit for promotion. Feeling aggrieved of this impugned order, the complaint filed this complaint alleging therein that neither the complainant was called for interview before the Promotion Committee nor the general principles of seniority have been observed in accordance with the P.R.T.B. Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules in promotion matters,
(ii) Respondents while denying the allegations, have asserted that the promotions were effected on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness after holding meeting of the Promotion Committee and in accordance with the rules on the subject.
(iii) Parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. After closing evidence, arguments were heard on main complaint as well as on the stay application with the consent of the parties. Additional informations were also sought from the parties later on.
3. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant urged that in spite of the complainant and his colleagues being senior to the promotees they were ignored as they belonged to rival union namely, Pakistan Road Transport Workers Union, which union lost the referendum on 17th May, 1975. Besides no meeting of the Promotion Committee was held and in case it was held, complainant was not called for interview. He further alleged that according to P. R.
T. B. Recruitments and Staff Promotion Rules and General guiding principles for promotion Exh. P.
3. In traffic cadre conductor holding a Matriculation certificate is promoted from the post of Conductor to that of Time Checker. Although the complainant and his colleagues fulfilled the basic qualification of Matriculation, yet they have been ignored without assigning any reason and by passing the "General guiding principles" that senior most shall be considered and if found unsuitable for which reason shall have to be recorded in writing, only then the second one shall be considered (Exh. P. 4).
4. He also urged that complainant and his colleagues have only been ignored because they belonged to a union which lost referendum on 17th May, 1983 against P.I.A.M. Union now acting as C.
B. A. It is a case of discrimination and covered under section 15 (c) of the I.R.O., 1969, as member of the rival C. B. A. Union have been promoted, in preference to members of the complainant's union.
The very presence of Ali Asghar Shah, General Secretary of C. B. A. Union in the Promotion Committee lends support to the fact that promotion has not been made in an honest manner. On the contrary he has manoeuvred to get members of his union promoted in preference to the complainant being junior to him. This also finds reflection in the statement of Noor Hussain Vice- President of Workers Union, a prosecution witness. Fake proceedings of Promotion Committee have been prepared with a view to giving advantage to junior persons and promoting them out of turn so as to show that no discrimination has been made in the matter of promotions.
5. Refuting the arguments the learned counsel for respondent sub milted that promotion is a sole discretion of the management and not a guaranteed right as claimed. The respondents had kept in view the general guiding principle of seniority cum-suitability in the Promotion Committee meeting held on 4th October, 1984 after selecting 20 senior most conductors fulfilling the basic qualification. The list containing the name of the complainant and others was pasted on the Notice Board on 1st October, 1984 informing them that interview to the post of Time Checkers will be held on 4th October, 1984 in District Manager's office Exh. R.2. In spite of intimation the complainant listed at serial number 9 did not appear before the Promotion Committee. Finding him unfit on the basis of performance and unsatisfactory income ignored him for promotion. Exh. R.3. He was accordingly informed through Exh. R.4. Similar is the position of his other colleague.
6. He further submitted that according to Exh. P.
2. Showing members of P. I. A. M. Union the complainant has only been able to point out three names i. e. Muhammad Hanif, Murtaza and Muhammad Yaseen who got the promotion but has failed to prove that other three promotees also belonged to P. I. A. M. Union. Interestingly complainant who claimed to be a Regional Secretary of Workers Union, after severing connection with P. U. T. C. Employees Union, admitted in his cross-examination that no receipt is issued for union funds which showed hollowness of his claim as Regional Secretary. Exh. P/D also showed overwriting in dates on the membership forms and which could not be relied upon.
7. He also submitted that presence of General Secretary of P.I.A.M. Union (C. B. A.) in the Promotion Committee meeting held on 4th October, 1983 as observer was in pursuance of practice prevailing in the P.U.T.C., as prior to present C.B.A., General Secretary, P.U.T.C. Employees union, used to act as observer in such meetings. Complainant being conscious of such practice did not take this plea in his complaint.
8. Finally all the four members of the Promotion Committee have deposed that fair selection of promotion was made after consulting the relevant service record, individual performance and keeping in view the promotion rules. The signatures of members of Promotion Committee only appear on the promotion-sheet. Out of the six promotees three promotees were reverted to the original post of conductors after finding their work and performance as unsatisfactory during three months probation period a condition precedent in such matters. No discrimination has been made between the members of the three registered unions in the organization and respondent has maliciously been named to cover up complainant's own failings. Complainant instead of filing an appeal/revision against the decision of Promotion Committee to Managing Director has filed this baseless complaint to harass the respondent.
9. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
10. The main contentions of the complainant are that :-
(i) While promoting conductors to the post of Time Checkers complainant was only ignored as be belonged to a rival union in spite of his being senior to promotees i. e. Altaf Hussain, Bostan Khan, Muhammad Hanif and Mehrban Khan, members of C.B.A. Union appearing at S. Nos, 15, 16, 17 and 20 of the seniority list.
(ii) That this discrimination in promotion is also due to participation of General Secretary, P.I.A.M.
Union (C.B.A.) in the Promotion Committee meeting held on 4th October, 1983 who has influenced the course of selection by getting his own persons promoted in preference to senior incumbants.
Looking at the Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules and general guiding principles which are reproduced below :- "(2) The basic principle of promotion would be 'seniority-cumsuitability'. For all promotions the senior mast person shall be considered first, and if found unsuitable, for which the reasons shall have to be recorded in writing, only then the second man shall be considered and then the third and so on. The person so superseded shall be informed of this supercession in writing."Exh. P.
4.
' The reading of these general guiding principles reveals that sinioritycum-suitability has been made the criteria for promotion to a higher post. Mere seniority will not entitle any incumbent of promotion, unless he is also found suitable.
11. In the instant case complainant who appears at serial number 9 of the seniority list was not found suitable according to remarks recorded by the promotion committee "income not satisfactory, .Unfit". The only limitation imposed in the General guiding principle is that while finding senior most as unsuitable reasons shall have to be recorded in writing only then the second man shall be considered and then the third. From the perusal of the minutes of the promotion committee placed on record, it can be said that principles mentioned above have generally been adhered to. The reasons for not promoting the complainant have been recorded and the same conveyed on 5th October, 1983, through a memo. Which is Exh. R.4.
12. The other contention that General Secretary of C. B. A. Union has influenced the promotion committee in favour of members of his union by participating in the promotion committee, although not made a ground in the complaint, however answer can be found in the arguments of learned counsel of the respondent that presence of General Secretary of C. B. A. Union in the Promotion Committee meeting is by practice and previous General Secretary of P. U. T. C.
Employees union which lost referendum to the sitting C.B.A. On 17th May, 1983 also used to sit in such meetings. Since practice of associating a representative of C.B.A. Union is in existence, I am not inclined at this stage to disturb the promotion because of it. A question was posed to the District Manager (Respondent) to explain under what circumstances the General Secretary of a C.B.A. Union is being associated with promotion committee, as his presence alone will give rise to mis-giving and doubts about the working of the promotion committee beside creating ill will, bitterness between the incumbents and thereby opening avenues for litigation. His answer was that it is a practice that representative of the C.B.A. Union sits in the pro. Motion and selection committees. I am constrained to remark that in case association of sitting C. B. A. Is not due to any clause of agreement/ settlement, then this practice, in the interest of all concerned needs looking into.
13. Respondent when called for additional information and arguments held out an assurance that complainant will be considered for promotiom on the basis of Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules, alongwith others whenever vacancy occurs although at present the promotion chances appear him because of the contemplated merger or P.R.T.B. Into P.U.T.C.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that no case of discrimination leading to unfair labour practice against the Respondent is proved. The petition as well as the stay application is accordingly dismissed.