Find a Lawyer

Petition No.213 of 1984, decided on 25th May, 1986.

‑‑‑Reversion‑‑Incumbent of superior post made to look after work of inferior post during absence on leave of its incumbent‑‑Arrangement, held, would not amount to reversion.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Necessary party‑‑Petitioner claiming promotion on plea that his junior was promoted‑‑Junior alleged to have been promoted not impleaded‑‑Petition, held, was not maintainable for reasons of non‑impleading necessary party.

1979 P L C 136 and 1980 P L C 653 rel.

‑‑‑S. 2 (xxviii)‑‑Workman‑‑Printing Foreman getting Rs.1991 as total emoluments with basic pay @ Rs.915 and three workmen under him whose leave and over‑time recommended by him‑‑Such foreman working in supervisory capacity, held, was not a workman.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioner.

M.G. Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.

This is a petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 by one Muhammad Shafi against his alleged order of reversion dated 20‑9‑1984 and promotion of one Mirza Mehboob Ellahi.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined service in the respondent establishment as a lock‑up man and was promoted as a Matrixman in 1972. From 1‑6‑1981, the petitioner was further promoted as a Printing Foreman. In December, 1982, the petitioner was allegedly put on the job of Matrix Foreman against his wishes and experience on which he lodged protest. Side by side, a vacancy of Printing Supervisor arose which was filled in by promotion of Junior person, Mirza Mehboob Ellahi against which the petitioner represented. To justify the above illegal acts, the respondent allegedly charge‑sheeted the petitioner falsely on 29‑7‑1984 but the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of the charges. Instead of promoting the petitioner, the respondent reverted him to the post of Matrixman by order dated 20‑9‑1984 Exh.P‑3. Feeling dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner served the respondent with grievance notice Exh. P.4 but with no result. Hence this case seeking to set aside the order of reversion Exh. P‑3 and to issue direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner as a Printing Supervisor w.e.f. the date Mirza Mehboob Ellahi was promoted.

3. The respondent contested the grievance petition on law and facts.

4. Both the parties produced evidence. I have heard the arguments from both sides, and perused the record.

5. The impugned order of reversion Exh.P‑3 is to the effect that it had been decided that in the absence of Mr. Zaheer Uddin Matrixman, the petitioner will prepare matrice. I do not think as to how the petitioner treats it as an order of reversion. It is very common in every office that when an incumbent of inferior post is absent on account of leave or otherwise, some incumbent of superior post is made to look after the work of the inferior post. However, even if it was an order of reversion, it has been remedied by office order dated 10‑9‑1985 Exh. P.10 during the pendency of the case and the grievance petition has become infructuous on that score.

6. Claim for promotion seems to be time‑barred inasmuch as Mirza Mehboob Ellahi was admittedly promoted in 1983 against which the petitioner certainly represented to the National Press Trust vide Exh.P‑8. This communication was replied to by the respondent vide Exh.P‑9 and the petitioner was advised to take up the matter with the Chief Executive P.P.L. as the N.P.T. had no concern with individual cases. The petitioner allegedly took up the matter with the Chief Executive P.P.L. vide Exh. P‑11 and he says as P.W.I that it was sent by registered post but no postal receipt or A/D has been produced in evidence. The respondent does not accept this representation to have been made. If so, the departmental remedy against promotion of Mirza Mehboob Ellahi ended with Exh.P‑9 on 12‑1‑1983 and the grievance notice sent on 25‑9‑1984 would be time‑barred. It has also been pointed out that in the absence of Mirza Mehboob Ellahi as a necessary party to this case, B the grievance petition is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on 1979 PLC 136 and 1980 P L C 653 which support the contention.

7. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner was incharge of Matrix section, appointed in supervisory capacity and drawing total emoluments of Rs.1,710 per month, hence he was not a workman. In his examination‑in‑chief, the petitioner did not try to meet with this objection and in cross‑examination admitted that his total emoluments were Rs.1,991 p.m. and that even his basic pay was Rs.915 per month. There are three workers under him whose designations are Matrixman, Lockup man and Inkman. The petitioner recommends L their leave and over‑time. If so, in the absence of any evidence from the petitioner, he can hardly be treated as a workman.

8. The crux of the above discussion is that the grievance petition fails on law and facts with results that it stands dismissed.

A.E. Petition 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.