DECISION The sole point which falls to be considered in this appeal, Which is against the decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court, given on 4th August, 1982, is whether the reversion of a worker to his substantive post, from higher post to which he was appointed on probation, infringes any vested _ right of the workman and entitled him to file a grievance petition against' such action .
2. The admitted facts of this case are that the appellant, who had been serving for some time as bus conductor in the -respondent-Corporation, was promoted/appointed alongwith 48 other employees of the respondent-Corpo--ration as Traffic Assistant. It was specifically stated in the order of appoint--ment that the said appointment /promotions would be on probation of three months and that in case the performance of work of any employee promoted was not satisfactory during the probationary period, he would be reverted to his substantive post. By order, dated 10th May, 1981, the appellant was reverted to his substantive post of conductor, during the Period of his pro--bation. It was asserted by the respondent-Corporation that the work of the appellant, during the period of his probation, was not found satisfactory and hence he was reverted to his substantive post. On the other hand, the grievance of the appellant was that he had been victimized on account of his trade union activities and also on account of the hostility of the Chief Traffic Manager against him, who did not cherish his promotion as Traffic Assistant. The appellant challenged the orders reversion before the learned Fifth Labour Court which has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition. The appellant has, accordingly, come up in the appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It is an admitted position that the appellant and the other 48 employees promoted with him were promoted on the specific condition that if during the period of their probation, which was fixed at three months, their work is not found satisfactory they will be reverted to .:their substantive post.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, sought to argue that the reversion of the appellant, even during the period of probation on account of unsatisfactory work, constituted reduction in rank and hence the appellant was entitled to file a grievance petition against such a reduction, as it was with a stigma. In support of his contention Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, sought to rely on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported as Muhammad Siddique Javeed v, Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1974 SC 393). The said decision, however, does not support the contention of the learned counsel and in fact was directly against him. At page 401 of the report their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after discussing the various authorities. Cited before them, observed as follows :- "In the light of the above discussion, it appears to tile that a probationer is a person who is taken in service subject to the condition that it will attain a sure footing only if during the period that he is on probation he shows that he. Is a fit person to be retained in service. I agree with the view expressed in Muhammad Afzal Khan v. ThP Superintendent of Police, Montgomery and Riaz Ali Khan v.
Pakistan, that a person who is on probation is subject to all checks to which a permanent servant is subject. He cannot, for example, refuse to obey orders, keep his own hours of duty, or indulge in any mal-practice. In my opinion, if the service of a probationer is terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work that will not amount to dismissal or removal from service such termination will be in terms of the contract or the rules made by the Government but if the service of a proba-- tioner is terminated on the ground of misconduct that will amount to removal or dismissal. It will be a stigma in his favour. In the last mentioned case, the probationer will be protected by the provisions of Article 177 of the Constitution of 1962 and will be entitled to a show-cause notice and a proper enquiry against him must be made."
3. 1 will refer to two other authorities of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that reversion of a probationer or a person who is officiating to his substantive post does not amount to reduction in rank, unless the reduction in rank is for reasons of misconduct. 1n the case reported as West Pakistan Province v. Bashir Ahmed Quraishi (PLD 1959 SC 93). The established fact were that a permanent overseer was appointed as an officiating S.D.O. For indefinite period later he was reverted without any show-cause notice. At the same time his junior continued to officiate.
Repelling the contention that reversion of the officer amounted to reduction in rank, their Lordships held as follows :- "If an officiating appointment subject to the condition that in case work is considered unsatisfactory or the officer concerned is found to be suffering from shortcoming is on the same footing as an appointment on probation and, therefore, reversion from it is not reduction in rank, then it ought to follow that reversion from an officiating appointment in all cases is similarly not a reduction in rank, for an officiating appointment, in the nature of things, is tentative, in the sense of putt--ing the incumbent to proof of his capacity and competency in respect of higher responsibilities then those attaching. To his permanent post or grade: Every officiating appointment is really subject to the con--dition of the officer and his work being found satisfactory."
It was further held in the above case that in ordering reversion from an officiating position the chief consideration is the public interest of which none but the superiors of the officiating servant could be the judges, and it was not necessary that reversion should start with the junior most person.
4. Another case to which I would like to refer is of the East Pakistan Railway, Chittagoirg v. Abdul Majid Sardar (PLD 1966 SC 725).. In that case the respondent was first appointed as a temporary tally clerk and then promoted temporarily as a ticket collector later he was reverted to his original post without any show-cause notice. 1t was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, that a person having been temporarily promoted as ticket collector his rever--sion to his former post of a tally clerk did not amount to reduction in rank and that any one appointed to a post temporarily or in an officiating capacity did not come to hold the rank from which he is said to have been reduced.
5. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed next sought to argue that reversion of 'the appellant was ordered without giving him a show-cause notice. -. Since the appellant was appointed/promoted on probationary basis, he did not hold the post of Traffic Assistant as of right but on trial basis, and hence he was not. Entitled to a show-cause notice before reversion and the matter rested and entirely with his official superior, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bashir Ahmed Quraishi and Abdul Majid Sardar, noticed above. .
6. It was finally urged by Ch Rasheed Ahmed' that the appellant was victimized on account of his trade union activities. It has, however, been denied by Amir Hussain Moughal, the District Manager under whom the appellant was working that the appellant was an active trade unionist belonged to the C. B. A.' .It has been specifically asserted that the appellant was promoted/appointed to the post of Traffic Assistant on probation and it was fully competent for the authorities to revert him to his substantive] post.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal would dismiss the same in limine.