DECISION ' These are two cross-appeals one of which has been filed by Pakistan Steel against the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition and the other by the workman claiming the arrears, the Court having left the question of arrears for decision by the administration according to the Service Rules.
2. Respondent Naushad Ahmed after completing his training was employed as Sub-Engineer in Pakistan Steel. According to the settlement arrived at with C.B.A., this Sub-Engineer was entitled to promotion as Senior Sub-Engineer with effect from 31-5-1986. He was not considered for the promotion and his case was not placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee by the Pakistan Steel. After waiting for about 2 years he gave his notice and filed grievance petition.
3. The plea of the Steel Mill was that the grievance petition was time barred as two years have passed after his claim for the senior post became due. His plea was rejected by the Labour Court.
In any case this is a continuing cause of action which cannot be barred by time. Under the settlement the promotion was due to the worker and the Labour Court accordingly allowed the application but allowed it from the date of the order instead of the date from which the promotion became due.
4. The workman Naushad Ahmed on the other hand has claimed in appeal that his promotion should be allowed from the date he became due for promotion and it should not be left to the administration.
5. As regards the plea of the Steel Mills that the claim is time-barred, it has been rightly held that claim to promotion cannot be time-barred. If the promotion is to be effected according to the settlement, the case of the workman should have been placed before the D.P.C. It is not for the workman to approach the D.P.C. But it is for the administration to prepare the working paper for the D.P.C. Giving the names and qualifications of the workers due for promotion. There is, therefore, no substance in the appeal filed by the Steel Mill.
6. As regards the cross-appeal by the worker the promotion has not been allowed with retrospective effect and the question has been left for reconsideration by the administration under the Steel Mills Rules. If the promotion was due from that particular date and there was no impediment it was for the administration to put up the case of the applicant worker before the D.P.C. For promotion from the due date. However, this question has been again left to the administration to be decided under the settlement and the rule. The question should, therefore, be decided as directed by the Labour Court within a reasonable time and if the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the administration he can again approach the Labour Court.
7. For the reasons stated above both the appeals are dismissed in limine.