Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑15 of 1986, decided on 1st June, 1986.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑Industrial dispute‑‑Seniority ‑Railway employee promoted to substantive post, held, would maintain his seniority Employee transferred to some other category on his own request and on undertaking that he would rank junior could be treated as junior.

Ifran Qadir for Appellants.

Muhammad Anwar Lodhi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th May, 1986.

This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 28‑11‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with all back benefits.

2. The respondent was taken in" service as a Muawin 4 vide order Exh. P‑1 in the vacancy of one Abdul Ghafoor, Muawin, who had been promoted as a Mason. His services were terminated on the plea that Abdul Ghafoor, in whose vacancy he was appointed, had come back. The case of the respondent was that Abdul Ghafoor, in whose place he was appointed, did not come back and Abdul Ghafoor who was posted in his place was a different one. The plea of the respondent in this respect has been accepted by the learned lower Court. According to Exh. R‑1, the respondent was appointed as Muawin under I.O.W. at Faisalabad and not at Khanewal. In Exh. R‑1 it is not said that Abdul Ghafoor, in whose vacancy the respondent was appointed, had been sent to Khanewal. Exh. R‑3 shows that Abdul Ghafoor son of Muhammad Zahoor is a different person. Abdul Ghafoor in whose vacancy the respondent was appointed as Muawin under I.O.W. Faisalabad, whereas Abdul Ghafoor mentioned in Exh. R‑3 was working in Sleeper Factory Khenewal. Vide Exh. R‑3 the order of transfer of Abdul Ghafoor from Khanewal to I.O.W. Faisalabad, dated 27‑4‑1984 was cancelled and he was returned to Khanewal to work on his previous post. The order, whereby Abdul Ghafoor, mentioned in Exh. R‑1, was appointed as Muawin, is dated as 15‑12‑1984, whereas in Exh. R‑3 the order under which different Abdul Ghafoor was sent to Faisalabad is dated as 27‑5‑1984. If the same Abdul Ghafoor, on account of whose promotion the respondent had been appointed, had been sent back, then the order of his previous transfer could have been mentioned as, dated 15‑12‑1984 and not as 27‑5‑1984. Again order Exh. R‑6 shows that Abdul Ghafoor son of Muhammad Zahoor is described as assistant machine man working at Khanewal and he was transferred as Muawin under I.O.W. Faisalabad in an existing vacancy. If he had been posted as Muawin in place of the respondent, then existing vacancy would not have been mentioned in Exh. R‑6 but rather it would have been said that he was being posted as Muawin in place of the respondent whose services were terminated. Again in Exh. R‑6 it is mentioned that Abdul Ghafoor would rank junior to all those Muawins drawing same rate of pay at the time of assumption of his duty. If the said Abdul Ghafoor had been the same person who had been promoted as Mason, vide Exh. R‑1, no question of his being treated as junior most could have arisen. Needless to say that if a person is promoted to a substantive post, he p would maintain his seniority and cannot be treated as junior‑most. Only that person can bar treated ad junior who had been transferred to some other category on his own request and under the undertaking that he would rank junior. So, Exh. R‑6 further shows that Abdul Ghafoor mentioned therein is a different person from Abdul Ghafoor in whose vacancy the respondent was appointed as Muawin. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent.

3. As a result, the appeal being without force is dismissed.

A. E.

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.