DECISION (Rtd.) Ali Nawaz Budhani, J.-This is an appeal filed by the appellant, Jamilur Rehman against the impugned order, dated 22-7-1985, pas* sed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition under section 25-A, IRO. 196* filed by the respondent No. 1, Muhammad Ismail Chisty.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, namely, Muhammad Ismail was junior to the appellant, so, the appellant was correctly promoted as Security Assistant on 30-5-19*2, therefore his promotion cannot be over-ruled. The case of respondent No. 1 Muhammtnad Ismail is that though the appallants was sufficiently junior to him and had not completed the required one year probationary period, yet the respondent No. Was promoted on 26-11-1963 as Security Assistant, therefore, the promotion of the appellant be reverted and be placed as junior to him in the Seniority List, prepared by Respondent No 2. That (he appellant was appointed as Security Sargent on 15-4*1965 and was regularized as such on 1-1-1973. While the respondent No. 1 was appointed on 2 -3-1969 as Security Sargent and was regularized on <-9-197therefore, the appellant was clearly senior to the Respondent No. 1 and so he was placed at Serial No 2 and the respondent No. 1 was placed at Serial No. Ll of the Seniority List prepared by the Respondent No. 2 in the year 1977. That on the basis of this Seniority List and in view of the recommendations of the Promotion Committee the appellant was promoted as Security Assistant in 1977. Vide letter, dated 5-7-1979 on a vacancy of one Muhammad Ibrahim who was posted at Dera Ghazi Khan, That, on return of Muhammad Ibrahim from Dera Ghazi Khan, the appellant was reverted as Security Sargent and on resignation of Muhammad Ibrahim, the appellant was again promoted as Security Assistant on 30- 5-1282 on the basis of the orignal recommendations of the Zonal Promotion Committee made on 1977 The appellant, however, represented that his promotion be made effective from i-7 1977 and this representation of the appellant was accepted by the Managing Director of Respondent No. 2 and being the senior most, the appellant was pr >moted as Assistant Security Officer on 26-4-7983.
That the appellant claimed that he was rightly promoted as Assistant Security Officer and that the respondent No 1 cannot question such promotion, particularly when it is the absolute right of the Employer to promote any person on determination of fitness and suitability of a particular employee and thus, the grievance petition of the respondent No. 1 under seetion 25-A, IRO. 1969, was not maintainable.
3. Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross- examined. The learned Labour Court has allowed the grievance petition of the respondent No. 1 declaring him as senior to the appellant as Secnrity Sargent as well as Security Assistant and also the appellant's promotion was null and void and without jurisdiction with the directions that the respondent No. 1 should be considered'for promotion by a Promotion Committee to be constituted by respondent No, 2, hence this appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. Bashir Avan, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr Rana Mahmaod Ali Khan, the learned representative for the respondent No. t and have perused the record and proceedings of the case. The contentions of Mr Bas ir Awan, the leaened Advocate o? The appellant are two fold. Firstly, that the promotion is not the basic right or it is contemplated by section 25-A, IOR 1969, and secondly, that the provisions of Pakist n Water & Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance No. XIII of 19S3 are applicable in the present case. As regards to the first contention, Mr Bashir Awan has referred to me a Decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. HYD-285 of 1985, dated 6-4-1986, wherein it has been held as under :- "It is to be seen that the cause of action acrues to the petitioner only in respect of any right guaranteed or secured by him or under any law or any award or settlement. Promotion inter by the Department r the Management for stop gap arrangement or even otherwise is not the right to be agitated in a grievance petition. A promotion also in volves the reversion At any time if the management found that the worker has not come up to the level of the post he is promoted, he could also be reversed".
As regards to the second contention, Mr. Bashir Awan has referred to me to Section (1-D) of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance XIII of 1983, published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, dated 25th May, 1983, which reads as under "(1-D) Nothing contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 4XXIII of 1969), shall apply to or in relation to any person employed as a member of the security staff of the Authority for the protection of the installations and establishments of the Authority.
In view of this legal position, I, therefore, hold that the grievance petition of the respondeat No, 1 under section 25-A, IRO 1969 was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Mr. Rana Mahmuod Ali Khan has failed to submit any authority contrary to the above legal position.
5. For the reasons stated by me above, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.