1993 PLP 401 (PLC)

2. The respondent is an employee of the Railway Department and was promoted as SASM Grade‑III in BPS‑14 after he had been declared qualified by the D.P.C. vide Pakistan Railway Gazette Notification No.IV, dated 15-2‑1989 and was posted as SASM Grade‑III, Rohri. It was alleged that he also happened to be the Divisional Secretary of the Station Masters' Groups Association, Sukkur, and Joint Secretary of Pakistan Railways Employees Union, which was declared as CBA. His involvement in these activities was not to the liking of his superiors, but he could not be prevailed upon to refrain from his activities. It is also stated that as Joint Secretary of the C.BA. he had made Representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 10‑4‑1989. This had raised the ire of the bosses and vide letter, dated 14‑11‑1989 he was reverted as ASM Grade‑I.

3. After a due grievance notice he had filed an application under section 34 of the I.R.O. against the order of reversion, but once the objection had been taken to the maintainability of the petition, the same was withdrawn with permission of the Court to seek remedies through a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.

4. It was admitted in the Written Reply that the petitioner had been promoted as ASM‑Grade‑III on clearance by D.P.C., but the matter of promotion was subsequently re‑examined on the petition of other contenders, and it was found that the petitioner was wrongly promoted, and as a result of this he was reverted. It was further alleged that as the promotion was temporary and in .an officiating capacity, and further as the petitioner had no secured and guaranteed right, therefore the petition was liable to fail. It was also said that the petition was time‑barred. He had also not impleaded the Divisional Superintendent, his actual employer. There was a further bar, as there was a Notification declaring the Station Masters as employers which would put him out of Court.

5. The petitioner was his own witness while Muhammad Sharif, Office Superintendent, was examined on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Labour Court found all the issues in favour of the petitioner and allowed the petition.

7. As far the contention in regard to the Drivers and Station Masters being raised to the position of the Employers as per Notification mentioned earlier, there is a judgment from the Tribunal namely Altaf Hussain v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Appeal No. SUK‑397 of 1988 wherein they were found to be workman and I am in respectful agreement with the view taken therein

8. The next contention was in regard to time bar. The fact is that the withdrawal of the petition under section 34 was with the permission of the Court, but otherwise too, the impugned order was passed on 16‑11‑1989; the grievance notice was given on 24‑11‑1989 and the petition itself was filed on 3‑12‑1989. Evidently there is no force in it.

9. Similarly the objection that the Divisional Superintendent was not impleaded as a `Party' is rather tanuous, inasmuch as he is otherwise too subordinate to the General Manager and it was the later who had passed the order.

10. The last contention in regard to the maintainability of the petition, on the ground that reversion of an employee from a post where he was officiating, does not create a vested right which can be enforced by the Labour Court, needs consideration.

11. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan appearing on behalf of Railways had cited the case of Jamshed Ali v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Government of Pakistan 1976 SCMR 255 and Muhammad Akram v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi 1983 PLC

297. In the former case the contention that reversion could not be effected without hearing the parties was repelled, but it was added that "petitioner appears to have been asked to produce the original certificate twice before, to show his educational qualifications and he failed to produce it". In the latter case which is from the Punjab Tribunal, the following observations are note worthy: "This is not a case of the appellant that he has undergone the test and has been selected by the Selection Committee etc."

12. The instant case is very much distinguishable as the respondent had been declared fit by the D.P.C. for promotion in February, 1989 and he was promoted as such after due consideration on 20‑5-1989. In this capacity he had worked for six months. It is alleged that he had been reverted on the representations of other employees, but neither the names nor their representations have been brought on the record. Nor was the respondent given an opportunity to meet those allegations. It is not without significance that this reversion came a little after the Representation made to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

13. Admittedly the respondent had once again been promoted as ASM Grade‑III in April, 1991 but not with retrospective effect. It is also admitted that even after the order of reversion, he had continued working as ASM Grade‑III on account of the Stay granted by the Labour Court which was upheld by my learned predecessor.

14. Under the circumstances the view taken by the Labour Court has every justification. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2115/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.