1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Ali Ahmed Mahmood, Labour Officer, Vehari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 5‑5‑1984, in so far as it reverts the appellant be set aside and he be allowed to continue as Labour Officer.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in Sept. 1977, there were 75 posts of Labour Officers/ Inspectors, Weights and Measures in the Directorate of Labour Welfare Punjab, and the Directorate worked out 5$ quota for promotion of Superintendent/ Senior Superintendent as Labour Officers as provided in the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class II) Rules, 1968. On the basis of this strength 5% quota provided in the Rules, 4 posts were proposed to be reserved for promotion of Senior Superintendent/ Superintendents as Labour Officers. Later on the cadre of Inspectors, W&M consisting of eight posts was separated from the cadre of Labour Officers which consisted of 67 posts. Moreover separate Recruitment Rules had been framed for the posts of inspectors, W&M distinct from the posts of Labour Officers. Calculating 5% of the remaining 67 posts of Labour Officers, the Superintendents/ Senior Superintendents were entitled to get only 3 promotion posts of Labour Officers. On the basis of combined strength of Labour Officers and Inspectors, W&M, i.e. 75 posts of (sic) the appellant was promoted as Labour Officer against the 4th vacancy of 5% quota, but later on when the cadre of Inspectors, W&M was separated the ministerial staff holding the post of Senior Superintendent/ Superintendent were entitled to only 3 promotion vacancies and the appellant who was promoted against the 4th vacancy was reverted as Superintendent vide order dated 6‑5‑1978. However, certain posts of Inspectors, W&M were then lying vacant and in the interest of public work, the appellant alongwith others was temporarily adjusted against the posts of Inspectors, W&M (BPS‑16) in his own pay and grade for purposes of pay. Later on, certain vacancies of Labour officers in the direct recruitment quota became available and the appellant alongwith others was promoted as Labour Officer on purely temporary basis w.e.f. 20‑11‑1979, for a period of six months or till the availability of regular candidates. In para. 2 of the said order it was made clear that as these temporary promotions had been made against the post meant for initial recruitment, the incumbents would stand reverted without notice, to their original posts as soon as nominees of the Public Service Commission report for duty. It was observed that the promotion would not confer any right on the individuals in the matter of regular promotion nor the service would count towards seniority in Grade‑16.

4. Vide order dated 6‑5‑1978, the appellant was reverted back to his original post. He submitted representation dated 14‑5‑1978 and was again promoted on 16‑1‑1980 as Labour Officer purely on temporary basis. However, the appellant's earlier order of promotion after the approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee was not taken into consideration and the appellant made a representation which remained pending. As mentioned earlier the appellant was promoted on 14‑7‑1982 as Labour Officer. However by impugned order dated 5‑5‑1984 the appellant has been reverted as Superintendent to accommodate the recommendees of the Public Service Commission. As the said order had, been issued in the name of the Governor therefore, no representation could lie under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant being seniormost Superintendent was promoted as Labour Officer against 4 vacancies of 5% quota vide order dated 23‑10‑1977, and his case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee/ Governor and the same was cleared. According to the learned counsel for the appellant consequently by order dated 15‑12‑1977 the appellant was promoted against the aforesaid 4th vacancy on regular basis. According to him he was reverted on 6‑5‑1978, due to some misunderstanding although he had been working on regular basis yet he was adjusted against the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures) Grade‑16, in his own pay and scale, and by another order dated 16‑1‑1980, appellant was promoted on purely temporary basis, but ultimately by order dated 14‑7‑1982, he was promoted as Labour Officer on regular basis, under the orders of Governor of the Punjab on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and as these orders duly acted upon, therefore, the same could not be rescinded. In this manner the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the reversion as erroneous and indiscrimination.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the detailed comments filed by the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department and has submitted that as the history of the case would reveal, the appellant's case fall within the ambit of three posts of Labour Officers. He has vehemently argued that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was misconceived, wherein he has claimed that there were four posts available and the appellant was entitled to the 4th post. It has been further submitted that the 5$ quota which worked out 4 posts, was on the basis of combined strength of Labour Officers/ Inspectors W & M, whereas in fact when the cadre of W & M, was separated from the said combined strength, the posts which were available, were three and not four. He has relied on the order dated 14‑7‑1982 referred to by the appellant and has submitted that the promotion of the appellant as well as others was on temporary officiating basis against the vacancies meant for direct recruits in relaxation of Ratio of Recruitment Rules, 1973 and the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class II) Rules, 1968. In this manner he has submitted that the appellant was liable to be reverted as the appellant had no case which could support his claim so made out in his appeal.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find lot of force in the arguments of learned District Attorney on the ground that the order No. Lab (1)2(4)/75 dated 14‑7‑82 is self‑explanatory and has clearly laid down that the promotion of the appellant as well as others were on temporary basis against the vacancies meant for direct recruitment, in relaxation of Ratio of Recruitment Rules, 1973 and the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class II) Rules, 1958. It is also clear from Annexure 'F para‑2 that the appellant was to retain his inter se seniority in the next below grade and was liable to reversion to his lover grade or post without notice under section' 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as soon as it became possible to fill the post in the prescribed manner. In this manner the appellant was liable to be reverted to his lower grade or post as soon as the persons recruited in the prescribed manner were so available. The prescribed manner for direct recruitments was selection by the Public Service Commission. As the selectees of the Public Service Commission had arrived who had been appointed against the vacancies held by the appellant and others, therefore, the appellant had to be reverted as Superintendent, his original post. We have taken pains to thrash this matter further, and find that there were 67 posts of Labour Officers out of which 3 were meant for promotion against 58 ministerial quota reserved for Senior Superintendent/ Supdt:. These three promotion vacancies were already held by M/s. Allah Ditta, Khalil Ahmad and Wazir Ahmad, who belonged to the Regions of Lahore, Multan and Sargodha. The appellant borne on the strength of Sargodha Region from where Malik Wazir has been promoted. In these circumstances the respondents had no alternative but to revert the appellant from the said post from 3‑5‑1984. It is also established on record that no promotion vacancy has been utilised for direct recruits by the Directorate of Labour Welfare through Punjab Public Service Commission. As the appellant was holding the post of Labour Officer meant for direct recruits, the same vacancy had been got vacated in order to accommodate the selectees of the Public Service Commission. His clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee was purely on. temporary basis against the vacancy meant for direct recruits, in this manner no injustice has been done to the appellant who had no right to occupy the said post. While going through the Rules we find that there were certain prerequisite qualifications required for direct recruits and only those Labour Officers could be retained in purely temporary capacity who fulfilled such qualifications prescribed in the Rules. The candidate appointed as Labour Officer should at least be Graduate from the recognized University whereas the appellant is only Matric and as such does not fulfil those qualifications and in this manner the reversion of the appellant was fully justified.

9. In the light of above detailed analysis of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has no claim for continuation as Labour Officer and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any force. There will be no order as to costs. A.E./85/Sr.T Appeal dismissed.