1986 PLC 403

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Summary

This appeal is directed against an order dated 30-5-1983 passed by the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, which dismissed the appellant's grievance petition. The appellant, initially appointed as a Gangsman, was promoted as Assistant Way Inspector and subsequently sent back to his substantive post of Gangsman after failing to qualify the P-5 Course and upon the arrival of a qualified senior person. The core legal question was whether the reversion of the appellant violated any of his secured or guaranteed rights. The Tribunal held that the appellant was merely returned to his substantive post on a stop-gap arrangement, no right of the appellant was infringed, and a better qualified person was accommodated. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order of the Labour Court. The Tribunal laid down the principle that an employee placed on a stop-gap or officiating arrangement without specific terms of continuing promotion has no vested right to the post when a qualified person becomes available to fill the substantive position.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether an employee appointed on a stop-gap arrangement has a secured right against being returned to their substantive post?
Does the reversion of an officiating employee upon the arrival of a qualified person constitute an infringement of guaranteed rights under labour laws?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969

reversionsubstantive poststop-gap arrangementgrievance petitionlabour court

DECISION

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.

Judges on this bench

Ali Nawaz Budhani721 judgments