1987 PLP 498 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 27th November, 1986. These are two appeals filed by the appellants, against the 2 impugned orders, dated 7‑12‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that both the appellants were appointed as conductors and subsequently, they were promoted as Traffic Assistants and thereafter, as Inspectors and they continued to work as Inspectors. That both these appellants were reverted to the posts of Traffic Assistants without any charge‑sheet or an enquiry. That, even the District Manager was not competent to revert, suspend or penalize the Inspectors, but, in their cases they were reverted only by the Traffic Manager. That they were reverted due to prejudice as the posts were not abolished, therefore, they submitted grievance petitions before the Labour Court for direction to declare the reversion of the appellants as illegal.

3. The respondent establishment opposed the cases and submitted that no cause of action accrued to them as there was no violation of Law, Award of Settlement; therefore, their grievance petitions were not maintainable. They further stated that the reversion, retrenchment, transfer and promotions were the right of management and no employee can interfere with the administrative functions of the management. That the appellants were promoted to the posts of Traffic Assistants and subsequently to the posts of Inspectors but, they were reverted to the posts of Traffic Assistants as they were surplus to their requirements. That the appellants were neither charge‑sheeted nor they were reverted on account of any charge of misconduct. The respondent establishment has asserted that the Traffic Manager of K.T.C. was fully competent to revert the appellants, as such the reversion orders were legal, therefore, the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, were liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross ‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned orders, hence these two appeals.

5. As the facts and circumstances in both the impugned orders are common and similar, therefore, I propose to decide these two appeals by this single Decision. I have heard Mr. Abdul Monem Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the appellants and have also perused the record and proceedings of the cases. He contended that though the appellants had good service records and there were no adverse entries against them, yet, they were mala fidely reverted from the posts of Inspectors to the posts of Traffic Assistants. I see no force in this contention of the appellants. The record shows that both these appellants were reverted on the basis of "last come first go". It is an established principle of Law that the management has a right to transfer, suspend, revert and/or to dismiss an employee, therefore, such an A employee has no right, guaranteed or secured under any Law, Award of Settlement to approach the Labour Court for the relief of his promotion. The plea of the respondent establishment was that these appellants were reverted due to abolition of the posts as there were financial crisis in the K. T. C. The K. T. C. was competent to transfer, promote and revert its employee. Admittedly, there is no allegation of misconduct against the appellants. The reversions were made on the policy of "last come first go". The appellants were senior employees of the respondent establishment and the seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment, provided there is no order in writing superseding the employee. The learned Labour Court was correct in directing the respondent establishment to absorb the appellants as Inspectors and in case, there is no existing vacancy, the appellants may be absorbed as soon as any vacancy of Inspector occurs in the K. T. C.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned orders and dismiss both these appeals in limine. M. Y. H./891/Lb.???????? Appeals dismissed.