The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 9th July. 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Mushtaq was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated as guard Grade-11.
2. As the two appeals arise from the same decision of the learned lower Court they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. Divisional Superintendent, Railway will be described as the appellant, M. A. Ghafoor as appellant No. 2 and Muhammad Mushtaq as respondent in this judgment. The facts are that the respondent was A.S.M. He applied to be posted as guard Grade-11,- but remaining unsuccessful be applied to the Minister, who recommended his application with the order "he may be appointed as guard Grade-11". The application is R-1, dated 24th June, 1976. The concerned authorities showed some hesitation where--upon the respondent made another application to the Minister which is R-2. The Minister repeated the same kind of order on it besides granting relaxa--tion of age. The order is dated 7th August, 1978. The respondent there--after was vide R-6 posted as guard Grade-11 against 20% quota on 20th April, 1976 temporarily till further orders drawing pay of A. S. M. It was directed in the said order that he would draw Rs. 200 Rs. 40 in scale .200 -425 (N. P. S. No. 8) as Grade-11 from the date he started working as guard-II independently. Vide letter P-2; dated 11th October, 1976 he was directed to report to Station Master/Assistant Station Master to resume duty as Guard-11 independently. Letter P-5 of Divisional Superintendent, Multan shows that he qualified. He was ordered to be returned to the post of Assistant Station Master, vide order 28th August, 1977 and 31st August, 197 7 on account of some representations made by Grade-I guards.
The case of the appellant is that respondent No. 1 Muhammad Mushtaq was appointed as Guard 11 under political pressure on the repeated orders of the Railway Minister, therefore, was rightly reverted. So far as the appointment is said to be against rules the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 is two-fold. He has made reference to rule 108 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Vol. I and has argued that according to the said rule the appointment of respondent No. 1 being in equal grade was a transfer so he could be transferred. Rule 108 is not relevant because it appears to relate to the same category. Rule 109 is relevant. According to this rule appointment of an incumbent of class III guard in the same or higher grade of an other category not by way of regular promotion or transfer will be a direct recruitment. The category of Assistant Station Master is different to that of guards so this rule is germane to the case and not rule 108. But it was not by way of promotion or transfer because the order was of appointment against 20% quota. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 is that the respondent No. 1 could be appointed in the intermediate grade according to rule 3 of Advance Chap. No. I of Personnel Manual General but as before the appointment of respondent No. 1 Grade-III had been abolished in 1969 so his appointment as Guard-11 was not an appointment in intermediate grade. This argument is also untenable. Grade was not abolished but the scale of Grade-II and Grade-III was fixed one and the same branches them together. Learned counsel has also said that the appellant was in lowest Grade-I as there were only two grades at that time the third grade having been deleted. I have already observed that Grade-III was not abolished. Appointment order clearly shows that appointment was made in the Grade-II so it cannot be said that it was made in Grade- I.
3. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants Nos. I and 2 is that the Multan Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the respondent was employed at Shorkot Road. No doubt such an objection was raised by the Railway in its written statement but no evidence was produced on the point. This was a question of fact and could be proved by cogent evidence. No question on the point was put even to the respondent in cross-examination. There are 10 Labour Courts and this Tribunal is not expected to know the limits of territorial jurisdic--tion of each Court. It appears that the point was not argued before the` learned lower Court because no finding has been recorded on it. Since there is no evidence on the point it cannon said that the learned lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
4. As a result of the observation made above I do not find any force in the appeals and dismiss them.