The order dated 23-4-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as a Senior Accountant but on the abolition of the post his services were terminated and after about five months he was reappointed against the post of Accounts Assistant. After few years the post of Senior Accountant was again sanctioned and the same was restored. The claim of the respondent is that he should be given the same post on the ground that he had been working against it or in the alternative he may be promoted to the said post. He applied for interim stay requesting that till the decision of the case the vacancy may not be filled in and accordingly the learned lower Court has issued such an order.
3. Since the respondent is to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant the prayer does not appear to be unreasonable. No employee has a right of promotion but every employee has a right to be at least considered for promotion. The petitioner instead of coming in revision, should have accepted the case of the respondent by making statement that the petition was prepared to consider the respondent for promotion. It has been argued that as stated by the respondent in the impugned order, there are two posts and since the respondent has to get only one post the stay order should have been to the extent of one post and not for both the posts. This argument outwardly appears to be forceful but in reality does not appear to be convincing. For promotion seniority is also to be considered and if the respondent is found to be the senior most then he has to get the first chance provided that he is found fit for promotion and the petitioner cannot promote any other person junior to him before considering him. No other point has been argued. The impugned order does not need any interference and so the revision is dismissed in limine.