JUDGMENT The petitioner has called in question the award dated 7-3-1974 of the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 whereby the President of the Labour Court cancelled the promotions of 7 subervisers to the newly created posts of Superintendents and directed the petitioner-Bank to make such promotions from the seniority list of the joint cadre of supervisors, sub-accountants/investigators on the basis of seniority alone. 2.
The petitioner-Bank had abolished the posts of supervisors with the result that there was some frustration caused to the holders of these posts. A settlement was accordingly reached whereby the demand of the supervisors was accepted treating the seven existing incumbents at par with the sub- accountants/investigators for the purposes of promotion to higher posts. Then there was a further demand that all existing supervisors be absorbed and promoted as managers in the direct quota. This demand was also accepted by another settlement dated 10th November 1971, to the exteat that the existing supervisors would be considered for appointment as managing Grade II against the vacancies meant for direct quota by relaxing the additional qualifications pi escribed for the post. By a subsequent resolution of the Board of Directors the cadre of junior officer's grade I & II was merged into a common cadre of statistical officers. It was also found that regional managers who were to inspect the branches generally remained away from their headquarters and in order that there should be experienced officers to look after their work new posts of superintendents were created and the existing supervisors were then promoted to these posts. The Agricultural Development Bank Staff Union, however, disapproved of this action on the ground that supervisors who were to be counted at par with the sub-accountants/investigators for promotion to the postsof accountant/ investigation officers were given a jump over them and appointed directly as superintendents in the higher grade. They accordingly filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the 5th Sind Labour Court, Karachi. The Labour Court gave the award that the bank had promoted junior persons direct to the posts of Superintendents *nd given them preference over sul>accountants/investigators; that the management had not produced any record nor adduced any evidence to show that these seven supervisors had any special merit. Their promotions were accordingly cancelled and the bank was directed to make promotions from the list of supervisors/sub-accountants/investigators according to seniority only.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Vellani on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of Sind Labour Court dated 7-3-1974, though called an award, is in fact not an award but it is mere decision against which no appeal lies to the appellate Tribunal; that the only remedy, therefore, open to the petitioner was to file this constitutional petition. Malik Muhammad Saeed for the respondents has not disputed this stand and has agreed that the constitutional jurisdiction has been rightly invoked by the petitioner.
4. It has then been argued that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969. Such an application could be made for the enforcement of any right guaraateed or secured by or under any law or any award or settlement. That clearly the settlements above referred were for the benefit of the persons holding the posts of supervisors as these posts had subsequently been abolished. The Settlements were not for the beneft of sub-accountants/investigators nor had any rights of promotion been guaranteed for them. Mr. Vellani has pointed out that under Agricultural Development Bank General Regulations, 1961 (Regulation No. 17) relating to promotion, these promotions to Class III and IV posts were to be made on the basis of seniority-cwm-fitness except in cases where a post was declared as a selection post by the Chairman. In that case the promotion was to be made on merit alone. That for the purpose of SSR 17 (a) all posts above the post of daftry in class 4 were to be treated as selection posts from 18-2-1961. That the posts of Superintendents were, therefore, regarded as selection posts and promotions to these posts were to be made on the basis of merit alone. The learned Advocate has cited the case of Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Pakistan and others (1). It was observed in that judgment as under: \ "It is obvious that the mere fact that the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination at the time when the system of examination for promotion was in vague, did not create any vested right in the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superintendent. If the Central Board of Revenue has since altered the channel of promotion, the petitioner cannot make a legitimate grievance of it as an infringement of any legal right amounting to alteration in the terms and conditions of his service. As no right had vested in the petitioner for promotion ' by his having passed the examination under the old system*, he cannot ask for the enforcement of that right, and his petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court. It seems that in effect the petitioner is claiming seniority over respondents Nos. 4 to 11 on the ground of his having passed the qualifying examination which the respondents had not. His effort to achieve that object by means of a writ petition in the High Court was entirely misconceived."
5. I entirely agree with the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the sub- accountants/investigators had no vested (1) 1972 SCMR 127 right to be promoted as Superintendents Class III. According to the regulations the post of Superintendent was to be filled in by promotion on the basis of merit alone. Considering the long experience of the persons holding the former posts of supervisors they were considered fit for promotion to newly created administrative posts as Superintendents. It was not open to the Union to guide the bank as to how the promotions to the posts of Superintendent should be made. Obviously the Labour Court could not have interfered with this selection under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as no such right to promotion had been guaranteed or secured to the sub- accountants/investigatois nor was there any award or . settlement with regard to the promotions of sub-accountaats/iavestigators to A these posts. By this order the Labour Court has in effect superseded the general regulations of the bank and directed the Management to make promotions from the cadre of supervisors, sub-accountants/investigators according to seniority alone. This order of the Labour Court is, therefore, without jurisdiction as it is the function of the Board of Directors of the Bank to make regulations for filling in any of the posts by promotion or by direct recruitment There is no award or settlement with respect to such promotions which could be enforced by the Labour Court. The said award or decision of the Labour Court dated 7-3-1974 purporting to be under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
6. In the result the petition is accepted, s. A. H. Petition accepted.