This appeal arises from the decision dated 31-8-1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1 Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for the fixation of his seniority and promotion as budget and accounts officer were. f. The date Fazal Yazdani, Ghulam Habib and Muhammad Sharif were promoted to the said post, was dismissed:
2. Previously two promotion examinations were to be passed for being promoted to the post of Budget & Accounts Officer but later on in 1970 the rule was amended according to which passing of only one examination remained necessary. But a further condition was inserted that the incumbent who had worked as Assistant Accountant for at least five years would be eligible for promotion to the post of Budget and Accounts Officer. On 7-121978 again amendment was made providing that as before passing of two promotion examinations would be necessary. Nothing was said about 5 years experience as Assistant Accountants. The rule was interpreted to mean that the condition of 5 years service as Assistant Accountant stood impliedly deleted. The appellant had admittedly passed promotion examination. Three persons who were senior to the appellant namely Fazal Yazdani, Ghulam Habib and Muhammad Sharif, who had 5 years standing as Assistant Accounts but had not qualified the -list. Examination were promoted as Budget and Accounts Officers with the condition that they would after promotion qualify the additional examination. This caused grievance to appellant to bring the grievance petition.
3. The appellant has no five years standing as Assistant Accountant whereas the three persons mentioned above satisfy this condition. Even if it be assumed that condition of five years standing as Assistant Accountant no more exists seniority cannot be ignored. It appears that since all the three persons .Mentioned above are senior to the appellant they were promoted on the condition that they would fulfil the additional condition of passing the promotion examination. The relevant rule does not say that seniority will be altogether ignored. Promotion is not a right so in section 25- A petitioner promotion cannot be claimed. Since the appellant is not senior to the above- mentioned three persons he cannot as K for their reversion and his promotion in their place. Since he does not say that there is another vacancy and claims after promotion seniority were. f. Three persons mentioned above were promoted. This is apparent that he claims promotion by their reversion.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any argu--ments on the point if the appellant is a workman. The earned lower Court has found that the duties of the appellant were supervisory as he had been sanctioning leave application and preparing A. C. Rs. Of his subordinates and his pay was more than 800. His duties are given in office order No. SOE (3) DFP/2 ~4) 8-98 dated 7-4-1977 copy of which is R-1. The letter has been reproduced by the learned Presiding Officer of the lower Court so the duties given in it need not be recapitulated in this judgment. The letter does not show that main duties were clerical. The bare statement of the appellant that his work was clerical has no weight in the presence of the duties given in the tatter referred to above. Neither the appellant gave the details of the clerical work nor got produced some clerical work as a specimen. He comes within exception (b) of section 2 (xxvii) of the I. R. O and thus stands excluded from the definition of workman. He A was not doing merely the work of routine nature. As his work was not merely clerical he is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (1) of Standing Orders Ordinance also.
5. As a result of the discussion made above the petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed.
There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.