Find a Lawyer

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Reversion‑Grievance petition against reversion‑Road Transport Board employee 'senior clerk) promoted as Cashier in same pay scale with special pay of Rs." 80 p. m.‑Reverted without giving any reason‑Post, held, could be rendered surplus if work had been finished or work load decreased‑Three Assistant Cashiers continuing to work‑Work load, in circumstances, held, could not be deemed to have decreased‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly directed reporting of petitioner as Cashier.

Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Appellant.

Munawar Ahmad Javed f: r Respondent.

Date of hearing :.19th February, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 31‑5‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted setting aside his. reversion and he was directed to be reposted as cashier with back benefits.

2. The respondent was a senior clerk. He was promoted to the post of cashier on 26‑2‑1975 vide order Exh. P‑2. On 11‑3‑1580 he was vide order Exh. P‑1 reverted as senior clerk without giving any reason and without being charge‑sheeted and holding any enquiry against him. It was, however, contended in the written statement filed in the learned lower court that he was the junior most. It was not contended, nor any evidence was produced that the post of cashier had become redundant and was abolished. R. W. I admitted that Ejaz Rafiq and Bashir Ahmad were junior to the respondent and they were working as assistant cashiers. Obviously a post is rendered surplus if work has been finished or work load has been decreased. An assistant has to assist the principal post holder. Cashier is the principal post and on account of excessive work assistants are appointed to give relief to the cashier. So if work load decreases, the post of Assistant are abolished and not that of cashier. Since juniors of the respondent were retained as assistants. this is manifest that there was work for the cashier. Instead of the post of cashier. the post of assistant cashier should have been abolished and one of the juniors of the respondent should have been reverted, if he had been promoted from the post of lower scale.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the posts of senior clerk and cashier belong to the same category, so reposting of the respondent as senior clerk did not amount to reversion. Admittedly, the respondent was promoted from senior clerk to the post of cashier, so it is clear that this was considered by the appellant a promotion. Cadre may be the same but category of senior clerk and cashier are different. Cashier gets Rs. 30 as allowance, while senior clerk does not get. The respondent A was deprived of monetary gain by being reposted as senior clerk. He was, therefore, rightly directed by the learned lower court to be reported as cashier.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.