DECISION The two applicants (including the appellant herein) were taken on employment as conductors and from time to time their services were utilized for long period as Traffic Assistant without changing of designation and without making payment of wages in the grade of Traffic Assistants.
2. Abdul Aziz, appellant herein has worked as Traffic Assistant with the respondent corporation for one year. The appellant was called for interview for promotion but the result was not announced. In the Office order, dated 4-8-1984 promoting 30 conductors in the grade of Traffic Assistants, the appellant was neglected.
3. On the other hand, the respondent corporation have contended that the appellant was not given specific duties and the period he had worked as Traffic Assistant in the corporation. The respondent further admitted that according to the settlement the appellant was called for interview by the departmental promotion committee but the said committee did not recommend the name of the appellant for promotion to the post of Traffic Assistant. Therefore, the appellant has no right guaranteed or secured to approach the Labour Court for promotion. Hence, this appeal against this impugned order of the Labour Court No. III, Karachi, passed on 17-12-1985.
4.The matter was argued at length by the respective counsel Promotion, as such, is not guaranteed by any law. Although the appellant worked as Traffic Assistant yet the promotion committee did not consider him qualified enough to promote him. Absolute discretion is vested with A the promotion committee. Mere temporary work as Traffic Assistant did not give the appellant right to make claim for promotion. There are other considerations also for promotion. No documentary proof is shown by the appellant that he had worked as Traffic Assistant.
5. The Labour Court found no force in the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. I also find that in the matter of promotion no application under section 25-A.I.R.O. 1969, lies. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.