DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dated 1-3-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Manzar Alam, Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Manzar Alam that the appeal is not maintainable as it has not been presented by the appellant himself. Mr. Manzar Alam has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Director, Medical Services, K.M.C. And another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 1975, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees'
Union 1989 PLC 176 and Sijawa Khan v. M/s. Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 PLC 262. In all these three decisions this Tribunal has held that appeal must be presented by aggrieved person himself and appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/Person, Attorney or Representative was not maintainable. In the instant case the appeal was presented by Mr. Irshad Muhammad Khan, Accounts Officer on behalf of the appellants. As such the appeal is not mainatinable.
4. However, as R&Ps of the case has been called and I have gone through record and proceedings of the case and the impugned order, I find that order requires examination by this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969, with regard to its legallity, correctness and prosperity.
5. The case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court was that he had passed the examination of Telephone Technicians Examination in 1977 but the persons who passed the said examination in 1982 were placed senior to him and he was denied the right place in seniority and also denied right of promotion. In the 'prayer clause' the respondent had prayed as under:- "(1) To direct the opponents to adjust the seniority of the applicant as Technician qualified trained from the date of entry into cadre since date of passing the T/Technician course of 1977 and be promoted as Telecom; Technician, and seniority be counted from first promotion of April, 1977.
(2) That the opponent be directed to issue promotion orders keeping in view the seniority/qualification and entry into cadre, with full back benefits."
6. The learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of the respondent in terms of the 'prayer' made by him. By granting this relief the respondent was given promotion and he was placed senior to the persons who passed examination in 1982 in the seniority list. Mr. Manzar Alam conceded that the promotion is not right guaranteed under the law. As such the learned Labour Court could not grant him this relief.
7. By allowing his claim of seniority the learned Labour Court has in fact placed respondent senior to some persons who passed examination in 1982. The persons affected by this order viz, persons who passed examination in 1982 have not been made party to proceedings. It will be against the principles of natural justice and accepted principles of administration of justice to pass an order which adversely affects rights of any person without giving him opportunity to be heard.
8. In view of the above discussions the order of the learned Labour Court granting the relief to the respondent as prayed by him is neither legal nor proper nor correct. In exercise of this Tribunal's powers under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O., 1969, I, therefore, set aside the impunged order.
9. The order of the learned Labour Court has been set aside on technical grounds. This would not deprive the respondent to seek any right that may accrue to him under rules of service or stop the appellants or employers from doing justice to the respondent in accordance with law and orders.