The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was employed as Coolie under respondent No. 3 on 16-1-1960. He was promoted as Semi-skilled Fitter on 4-3-1969 and subsequently transferred to the Fitting shops on 6-4-1964 where he was confirmed as semi-skilled Fitter on 15-6-1966. Altaf Hussain respondent No. 4 was confirmed semi-skilled Fitter on 17-10-1966.
Though he ranked junior to the petitioner, he was promoted as skilled fitter from 1-12-1973. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Junior Labour Court No. 1 (respondent No. 2) which was dismissed on 30-11-1974. He preferred an appeal in the Punjab Labour Court No. 1 which was also dismissed on 6-5-1975. Both the said orders are impugned in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section VI, I. (a)(ii) of the Advance Chapter No. 1 of Personnel Manual General which is to the following effect: In other cases relative seniority of men in a grade or class shall be reckoned from the date each was confirmed in the grade or class. The effect of this rule is that a man confirmed in a grade or class earlier even though drawing less pay, is senior to a man confirmed in that grade or class later even though drawing more pay. When two or more employees are confirmed in the same grade or class on the same date, their relative seniority shall be determined from the date of confirmation in the grade or class next below."
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the petitioner was confirmed as semi-skilled fitter earlier than Altaf Hussain respondent he must have been declared senior to him in the above-quoted rule. According to him this point had been specifically raised by him in his petition before respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but it was not considered or discussed by them in their impugned orders. It is further contended that Altaf Hussain respondent could not be declared senior by an order passed 7 years after confirmation of the petitioner in that grade w.e.f. the date of appointment of Altaf Hussain, namely, 11th February, 1963 and ignoring the Railways Rules on the subject the Tribunals had exercised jurisdiction illegally and irregularly.
3. There is no dispute between the parties as to the dates of confirmation of Sawar Ali petitioner and Altaf Hussain respondent. Sawar Ali petitioner was confirmed on 15-6-1966 while Altaf Hussain was confirmed on 17-10-1966. The above-quoted rule clearly provides that the seniority shall be reckoned from the date of confirmation in a grade or class. Though this point was agitated before the competent forums but they did not advert to it. Learned counsel for the parties desire that the matter should be remanded to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the effect of confirmation on the seniority of the parties. Accordingly, the petition is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside being passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction and the matter is remanded to Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for deciding it afresh in the light of above observations.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.