' Muhammad Saleem respondent who is serving as Senior Accounts Clerk in Pakistan Tourism and Development Corporation filed an application against the appellant viz. The Managing Director of Pakistan Tourism and Development Corporation under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Junior Labour Court No, 2, Lahore seeking relief to the effect that the appellant be directed to place the respondent in the category of Senior Clerks and to promote him as an Assistant from the date on which his promotion was due.
2. He contended that he was appointed directly as Senior Clerk on 10th July, 1971 and posted in Karachi in the Statistics Branch and Distribution Section. Subsequently he was transferred from S & E Section to Accounts Branch on 27th March, 1973. He was placed at S. No, 4 in the seniority list circulated by the appellant in the category of Senior Accounts Clerks. He made representation to the effect that he was originally a Senior Clerk and not a Senior Accounts Clerk. His seniority should have been fixed in the category of Senior Clerks. His representation was turned down. Subsequently one Mr. Shahid Hussain who was junior to him as Senior Clerk was promoted as an Assistant. The respondent thereupon served a grievance notice on the appellant and thereafter filed the petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. The appellant resisted the petition of the respondent and pleaded urge aka that no right guaranteed or secured to the respondent under any law, award or settlement had been infringed and therefore application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was not competent.
4. On merits the appellant maintained that the respondent was appointed as Senior Clerk but was transferred to accounts branch which he joined on 18th April, 1973 and since then he had been continuously performing the duties of Senior Accounts Clerk. The posts of Senior Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk have the same pay scale. A Senior Accounts Clerk is entitled to be promoted as Account's Assistant and then an Accountant and whereas the Senior Clerk is promoted as an Assistant and then as a Superintendent. The respondent had no objection when he was posted as Senior Accounts Clerk and in fact he repeatedly requested that he be transferred to Lahore as Senior Accounts Clerk. This request was even sponsored by the employees Union.
5. Muhammad Saleem respondent appeared as his own witness before the learned Lower Court while Mr. Muhammad Zahid, District Manager testified on behalf of the appellant before the said Court. The relevant documentary evidence was also produced by the parties before the learned trial Court.
6. The learned lower Court after considering the parties evidence felt that the appellant should have obtained the consent of the petitioner before transferring him to the accounts section which has not been done. Consequently by its order dated 5th September, 1975 the learned Court below accepted the petition of the respondent.
7. The said order dated 5th September, 1975 has been impugned through the present appeal.
8. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and particularly through the parties pleadings. The grievance of the respondent is two-fold. Firstly that he has been wrongfully transferred from the clerical cadre to the accounts section and secondly that a person junior to him in the clerical cadre had been promoted as an assistant.
9. As a matter of fact under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 a worker can bring his grievance before the Junior Labour Court in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force. Admittedly,' right of promotion is not so guaranteed or secured. It is purely discretionary with the employer to promote a workman of his choice to a post keeping in view seniority and suitability for the job. Unless of course there be a settlement or award to the contrary. No such settlement or award is forthcoming in this case. As regards the transfer of the respondent from clerical cadres to the accounts section.
It may be observed that the respondent did not protest when he was transferred as Senior Accounts Clerk S. & E. Section. Moreover terms of appointment of a person cannot be said to be a right guaranteed or secured under any law or award or settlement. It has been so held by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in Fouji Lyalipur Cotton Mills Lyalipur v. Workers & Stoff Union Samilarly Sind Appellate Tribunal in National Shlppirg Corporation, Karachi v. S. Munir Hussain Kirmani held that the terms of appointment of a person cannot be said to be right guaranteed or secured under any law or award or settlement.
10. In view of the above it is concluded that legally application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in respect of the grievance brought by the respondent before the learned lower Court was not competent. In this view of the matter, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent against the appellant before the learned lower Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1974 PLC Note 53 at p. 29 1974 PLC Note 6 at p. 3 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.