Find a Lawyer

Appeal No‑HYD‑222 of 1983, heard on 11th November, 1985

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Maintainable only against violation of any secured or guaranteed right‑‑Railway employee a Gangsman appointed as stop‑gap arrangement to officiate as Assistant Way Inspector pending his qualifying prescribed training course‑‑Course not qualified and duly qualified senior person appointed against post of Assistant Way Inspector‑‑Order of Labour Court rejecting grievance petition against reversion to substantive post of Gangsman in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.

Iqbal Hussain Jafry for Respondents.

The instant appeal is directed against an order, dated 30‑5‑1983, passed by the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad.

2. The appellant joined the respondent Railway Department as a Gangsman on 1‑3‑1974. Later on, he was promoted as Assistant Way Inspector, with effect from 15‑3‑1979. In the month of March, 1982, the appellant was deputed to attend P‑5 Course at Pakistan Railway Training School Walton, Lahore, but he was sent back. Under a letter, dated 4‑4‑1982, the appellant was reverted from the post of Assistant Way Inspector to that of a Gangsman. He, therefore, filed grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.0.,1969, against reduction in the rank.

3. The stand taken by the Railway Department is that the appellant was initially appointed as a Gangsman and it was a substantive post of the appellant. He was put to officiate as Assistant‑Way Inspector on stop‑gap arrangement pending his qualifying P‑5 Course. The appellant was reverted from time to time and lastly, the Department got a qualified senior person in his place therefore, he was sent back to his substantive post that of Gangsman.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The appellant has to show if any of secured or guaranteed right was violated by the reversion as a Gangsman. The order about promotion of the appellant as Assistant Way Inspector was not produced in evidence. Hence, it cannot be determined as to what were the terms and conditions of his continuing as Assistant Way Inspector. The contentions of the respondents were that the appellant was put to officiate as Assistant Way Inspector on stop‑gap arrangement pending his qualifying P‑5 course from the Training School, Walton, Lahore. A qualified person was available and he was accommodated in the post held by the appellant. Name of that person was Muhammad Ismail as stated by Muhammad Amin in cross‑examination. Muhammad Ismail was transferred from Multan Division to Karachi Division as Mate and then he was promoted in the Karachi Division as Assistant Way Inspector. The learned counsel of the appellant has urged that a person of a different Division cannot be posted in this Division on promotion. Muhammad Ismail was working as a Mate, but he was qualified, and, therefore, he was promoted.

5. After hearing of the arguments of the learned counsel, I hold) that the appellant was sent to his substantive post and that it was note a reversion. No right of the appellant was infringed and that a better qualified person has come to fill in the post of the appellant.

6. For these reasons, I find no point for interfering the impugned order. The appeal is hereby 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.