This appeal has been filed to assail the decision of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, dated 25-1-1990 whereby the grievance petition moved by the petitioner under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was dismissed.
2. The background which led to the instant litigation between the parties is that the petitioner- appellant was employed as Gateman by the respondents on 1-3-1978. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was found fit to work as Assistant Yard Master which is now named as Junior Assistant Train (J.A.T.) by order dated 23-6-1985 of the Assistant Transportation Officer and since then he has been performing duties as Junior Assistant Train. It was, therefore, claimed that having performed duties on the: said post for one year he was to be confirmed on that post on the strength of Industrial Court's Award notified in Government Gazette dated 13-10-1966 and even otherwise, irrespective of the award that petitioner having completed three years duties over the post in question he was entitled to confirmation under the law. Rule No.38 in respect of promotion courses and eligibility of staff vide Case No.757-E/O-IV (E. Policy), dated 25-9-1986 was also referred to so as to show that seniority should be considered amongst the eligible categories to be sent for promotion courses and no preliminary selection should be held for this purpose. However, in case of the petitioner this rule was violated and juniors to the petitioner were promoted.
Grievance notice to the respondents proved unsuccessful, therefore, grievance petition was filed.
The stand taken in the written statement was that the petitioner was utilized temporarily as Assistant Yard Master which is a selection. Grade post (B-8) and which requires completion of promotion course. It was also clarified that Assistant Yard Master and Junior Assistant Train are entirely separate cadres. The applicability of Rule 38 mentioned above was refuted which according to them was meant only for promotion courses and normal channel of promotion and not for selection of staff from Class IV to Class III.It was in the end stated that the petitioner having not been found fit for the job for which he had applied and, therefore, he was not selected.
3. The petitioner appeared as P.W. 1 and made statement in support of the allegations as given in the grievance petition while on behalf of the respondents Mahmood Iqbal, R.W. 1, supported the case of the respondents.
4. The learned counsel representing the appellant stressed that the grievance petition of the petitioner has been dismissed mainly because of his inability to produce the relevant record in the Court to prove, "that he was continuously working as J.A.T. For a period more than one year to get benefit of Award of the Industrial Court published in Government Gazette on 13-10-1966:" However, his plea was that he was ordered to work as JA.T. By order dated 23-6-1985 and, thereafter, he has been continuously performing his duties on the said post and was, therefore, entitled to promotion.
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner could not be selected as he had not qualified the requisite course and that he was utilized on stop-gap arrangement, therefore, could not be confirmed.
5. I considered these submissions in the light of the available record.
6. As I have come to the conclusion that the documents placed on case file are scanty and insufficient to resolve the controversy in its correct perspective and this fact has also been admitted by the trial Court, therefore, I have made up mind to remand this case to the learned lower Court and would thus avoid discussion on merits of the case. After the remand the petitioner should be allowed to bring on record such documents which may prove his continuous performance of duties as J.A.T. The respondents would also be at liberty to place further documents on record in support of their view points. After that the Court should decide the case in the light of the Gazette of West Pakistan (Extraordinary), October 13, 1966, which has also been exhibited as P.W.1/2 and other documents which are on the case file or to be produced at the trial after the remand.
Consequently, while allowing this appeal, the judgment of the learned Labour Court is set aside and the case is remanded to it for decision afresh in the light of the above observations. Parties would, however, bear their own costs.