Find a Lawyer

Applications Nos. 46 and 47 of 1983, decided on 5th August, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Right guaranteed‑‑Categorization‑‑Particular category‑ Whether a guaranteed right‑‑Petitioners Booking Clerks of Punjab Road Transport Board recategorized as Junior Clerks‑‑Both posts in same pay scale but avenues of promotion‑‑Booking Clerks rising upto status of District Manager on Traffic side and Junior Clerks rising upto Superintendent in ministerial establishment‑‑Posts of Booking Clerks existing‑‑Impugned order of transfer of Booking Clerks in garb of recategorization, in circumstances, held, without lawful authority and justification and set aside by Labour Court.

M.G. Saadullah Mumtaz for Petitioner.

lkram‑ul‑Haq for Respondent.

Both the grievance petitions bearing the above captions stand disposed of by this single judgment as both of them arise out of the same office order No. 150, dated 3‑2‑1980 passed by the respondent whereby, the petitioners, then Booking Clerks, were transferred to G.T.S. Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi as Junior Clerks'.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Shaukat Ali petitioner was directly recruited as Booking Clerk while Ahmad Hussain petitioner was promoted as such from the conductor. Their grievance is that their transfer as Junior Clerks amounts to reversion in the garb of re categorisation because a Booking Clerk comes under Traffic and can rise up to the status of District Manager while a Junior clerk falls in the establishment staff who can only rise up to Superintendent. Both the petitioners, therefore, served their respective grievance notice Exh. 22 on the respondent but having failed to get any redress of their grievance, resorted to knock at the door of this Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969

3. Both the petitions were vehemently resisted by the respondent and dismissed by the then learned Presiding Officer of this Court vide his judgment, dated 13‑9‑1981 on the grounds inter alia that‑the petitioner even after their recategorization as Junior Clerks, continued; to be in the same cadre and were in receipt of the same pay; hence it was neither a case of demotion nor a case of retrenchment. On appeal,, the said findings were disagreed with by the learned Appellate Tribunal and the cases were remanded for fresh decision.

4. It may be remembered here that one Muhammad Yaqoob who was transferred and recategorized as a Junior Clerk with the petitioners, was also a co‑petitioner of Ahmad Hussain in his grievance petition but; he seems to have neither gone in appeal against the initial dismissal or,, grievance petition nor he has ever put in appearance to press hiss claim after remand. He is, therefore, deemed not in the field.

5. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

6. It has already been observed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in the remand order, dated 15‑3‑1983 that though in the same cadre, the category of the petitioners could also not be changed. The reason assigned to the recategorization of the petitioners as Junior Clerks as pleaded in the written statement is that the petitioners had become surplus as Booking Clerks, hence they were accommodated as Junior Clerks in a different category to avoid their retrenchment. The impugned order Exh. P.1. was passed on 3‑2‑1980 while Exh. P.5 shows that four, Mashkoor Hussain Shah, Mr. Ashraf Mehmood, Mr. Naeem Iqbal and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Tabasam were transferred from Lahore to Rawalpindi on 30‑6‑1980. Exh. P.6 further shows that on 8‑5‑1980 two conductors namely Muhammad Khalid and Saleh Muhammad were promoted as Booking Clerks, though temporarily for a month. Not only this Exh. P.7 shows that one Abdur Razzaq Conductor was promoted as a Booking Clerk on 1‑11‑1980 while the above‑named two conductors continued as B.Cs. A step further, Exh. P.8 shows that Saleh Muhammad promoted as a Booking Clerk, vide Exh. P.6 was permanently absorbed in that capacity on 3‑9‑1980. In this view of the matter it is ridiculous to believe that the petitioners had fallen surplus as B.Cs. on 3‑2‑1980 and were accommodated as Junior Clerks for fear of their retrenchment. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that they were surplus as B.Cs. on 3‑2‑1983, there is no explanation as to why they were not considered to be recategorized as Booking Clerks when Muhammad Khalid and Saleh Muhammad, were promoted as such from conductors on 8‑5‑1980, when four Booking Clerks were imported from Lahore on 3‑6‑1980 when Abdur Razzaq Conductor was promoted as Booking Clerk on 11‑1‑1980 and when Saleh Muhammad Conductor was absorbed as Booking Clerk on 3‑9‑1980. 1 am accordingly of the view that the petitioners never became surplus as Booking Clerks and there was no justification for the respondent to recategorize them as Junior Clerks.

7. Exh. R.1 shows that the avenues of promotion on traffic side and establishment side are altogether different. It is perhaps for this reason that the learned Appellate Tribunal very rightly held that even the category of the petitioners could not be changed. Seniority list Exh. R.2 shows that the petitioners were not junior‑most Booking Clerks.

The respondent has produced no evidence whatsoever to justify the recategorization of the petitioners as Junior Clerks. The case of the petitioners as such seems to be un rebutted.

8. As a result, I accept both the grievance petitions and declare the impugned recategorization of the petitioners as Junior Clerks to be without lawful authority and justification and set aside the same. The respondent is directed to restore their status as Booking Clerks with all back benefits.

A.E.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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