' This is an appeal against the decision dated 15-7.1976 of Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore.
2. Mohammad Saeed Kanwal, respondent was an employee of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. He had been working there for the last fourteen years. At present he is serving as an Investigator/Sub Accountant at the Regional Manager's Office, Gujaranwala. He alongwith thirty- two other employees was dismissed from service on 20-1.1975, on the ground that his services were no longer useful to the Bank. He filed a petition for re-instatement before the Junior Labour Court, which was accepted on 29-5-1975 with a direction that he be re-instated with back benefits. The Management went up in appeal before the Senior Labour Court, which was dismissed on 25-6- 1975. In compliance with the above order the respondent was re-instated but was not given back benefits. He, accordingly, filed a complaint before the Senior Labour Court and one Dr. Hamid Ali Khan, Joint Director, alongwith Mr. Alvi was summoned as accused persons. They made a commitment before the Labour Court that all the dues of the respondent would be paid to him. A seniority list of the employees of the Bank was prepared and circulated by the Bank on 30-9,1974 and his name appeared at Serial No,
7. Thirty-three employees of the category belonging to the respondent were promoted on 8-3-1975 but ho was ignored. He, accordingly, served a grievance notice, the copy of which is Exh. P-9, on the Management of the Bank, which fact has not been denied. Since he could not get any redress, he filed the instant petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties accepted the petition and directed that the respondent be promoted alongwith the other promotees with consequential benefits with effect from 8-3-i 975, the date on which the other employees had been promoted.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, through its Director Administration has preferred this appeal.
4. In the case of Qasim Ali Dogar v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, I have already held that West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1963 did not apply to the Bank, as the Bank under section 39 of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1V of 1961 had framed the Agricultural Development Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1961, which were gazetted in the Gazette of Central Government of Pakistan dated 15-9-1961. In view of the above the respondent can only claim a right guaranteed of secured to him under the aforementioned Service Regulations. Regulation 17 reads as under :- ' Promotion.-(a) Promotions to class 1 and class 2 posts shall be made on merit and no employee shall have a claim to be promoted to these posts by virtue of seniority alone. Promotions to class III and class 1V posts shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness except in cases where a post is declared as a selection post by the Chairman in which case promotion shall be made on merit. Should an employee officiating in a higher post show signs of deterioration while he is so officiating he shall be liable to immediate and summary reversion to the lower post.
5. In the present case the respondent was to be promoted to a higher post in class 3 in which he was already officiating.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the reason why the respondent was not promoted was that he was not considered fit for promotion, as his confidential record had been found unsatisfactory by the Departmental Promotion Committee In a meeting held on 8-11-1975.
7. From the perusal of the record I find that according to 15 confidential reports Exh. P-1 to Exh, P-7 given by the Controlling Officer of the respondent, he was found to be an excellent worker and was fit for promotion. There is no adverse entry in any of these reports. Under these circumstances. I cannot understand how the Departmental Promotion Committee came to the conclusion that he was not tit for promotion on the ground that his confidential record has been found unsatisfactory.
8. In the result I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 1976 PLC 555