1989 PLP 230 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑- ‑‑‑5. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Objection/plea about re‑organization and reduction of number of posts n establishment not taken by employer in reply to grievance notice and petitioner not informed of same‑‑To raise such objection after grievance petition has been brought, held, was too late and could not be permitted. Ismatullah for Appellants. Respondent in person. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 5‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur whereby the appellant was directed to place the respondent in Grade No. B‑14 from 1‑11‑1986 to 30‑6‑1987.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that according to a notification copy of which is Exh.P.2 20% posts of Assistant were directed to be upgraded and placed in scale No. B‑

14. In compliance with the said notification three persons serving as Assistant were given scale No. B‑

14. One of them namely Ahmad Bakhsh Blouch retired on 1‑11‑1986 and the respondent claimed to be placed in scale No. B‑14 in the said vacancy and when it was not done he served a grievance notice and then brought a grievance petition. The case of the appellant is that on 19‑4 1987 vide Exhs. R. 1 and R. 2 re‑organization was made and the number of posts of Assistant were reduced to 10 from 13, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to be placed in scale No. B‑14 beyond 18‑4‑1987. Reply to the grievance notice was sent to the respondent but he was not informed thereby that re organization was made and that the number of posts of Assistant was reduced to

10. No document has been brought on the record by the appellant to show that the re‑organization and reduction of the number of posts was brought to the A notice of the respondent and other persons concerned. If the plea that re organization had been notified, the respondent may have challenged it in the petition. It was too late to raise such an objection after the petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had been brought. The other thing is that even if re‑organization was made and number of posts of Assistant was reduced to 10 it did not adversely affect the case of the respondent. He being senior most was retained as Assistant and thus was entitled to be placed in scale No. B‑14 in the vacancy of Ahmed Bakhsh. By reduction of posts of Assistant the junior most could be terminated or de‑graded but since the respondent continued to serve as Assistant it had no adverse effect upon him. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in issuing the direction that the respondent be placed in Grade No. B‑14 from 1‑11‑1986, the date on which Ahmed Bakhsh retired, to 30 6‑1987.

3. The appeal, therefore, has no merits and is dismissed. A.E./424/Lb. P. Appeal dismissed.