The above-captioned three appeals arise from the decision dated 5th March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. .l, Lahore, whereby the three separate grievance petitions of the above-mentioned three appellants were dismissed by a single judgment, As the points of fact and law involved in all the three appeals are one and the same, all the three appeals are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Three appellants were appointed as Assistant Enquiry Officers. The date of appointment of Mohammad Saleem Chughtai is 10th April, 1975, that of Sultan Mahmood Khan 18th October, 1976 and that of Ubaid Ullah Chaudhry 29th May, 1976. On 30th March, 1980 all the posts of Assistant Enquiry Officer were abolished by the Managing Direc--tor, option was invited from the three appellants whether they wanted to be appointed as Assistant Traffic Managers. They gave their consent and appeared before the Selection Committee and were selected for the said posts.
"Having accepted the terms and conditions 'of their appointment as Assistant Traffic Manager in the P. R. T. B. As contained in offer of appointment bearing No. Estt-.1/5/237-X, dated 15th April, 1980, following Assistant Enquiry Officers are hereby appointed as Assistant Traffic Managers in N. P. S. No. 16 and are posted in the Units noted against each :- S/No. Name Unit of Posting 1.
Mr. Ubaid Ullah G.T.S. Sahiwal.
2.
Mr. Sultan Mahmud Khan P. R. Depot, Faisalabhd.
3.
Mr. Mohammad Yamin General Bus Stand, Lahore 4.
Mr. Mohammad Saleem Chughtai.
G.T.S. Rawalpindi 5.
Mr. Ghulam Rasool G.T.S. Sadar Depot, Lahore 6.
Mr. Mohammad Din Nasir G.T.S. G. M. Abad, Faisal--abad They shall immediately move for taking up their duties at the places of their new posting after properly handing over charge of their posts to the Office Superintendent of the respective units."
3. The posts of Assistant Traffic Managers were also abolished on 25th June, 1980, followed by the termination of the services of the two appellants namely Ubaid Ulfah and Mohammad Saleem Chughtai on 5th August, 1980, whereas the services of Sultan Mahmood Khan were terminated on 25th September, 1980. Alt the appellants challenged the orders of their termination as Assistant Traffic Managers in separate grievance petitions axed from the decision of the said petitions, the present appeals arise.
4. The controversies between the parties that the Punjab Labour Court No. 1.Lahore had no territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch the appel--lants were not posted at Lahore at the time of their termination, but rather one was at Pindi; the other at Faisalabad and the third at Gujrat ; that the Assistant Traffic Manager did not come within the definition of worker and thus the Labour Courts have no ,jurisdiction ; that the Manag--ing Director had no authority to abolish the posts ; and lastly that the appellants were not junior most in the cadre. The Labour Court has replied the first point in the negative saying that since the order of ter--mination had been issued from the Head Office, Lahore, which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Court had territorial jurisdiction ; the answer to the second point was that the post of As--sistant Traffic Manager was covered by the definition of worker as given in the P. R. T. B. Rules and thus they were entitled to seek relief from the Labour Courts ; the finding of the Labour Court on the third point is that the Managing Director had authority to abolish the posts -on the fourth point the finding of the learned lower Court is that the appellants were junior most as the seniority inter se the Assistant Traffic Manager Assistant Enquiry Officers and Assistant Law officers is not integrated.
5. Since the point whether an Assistant Traffic Manager is a work--man or not has been decided in favour of the appellants and no cross---objections have been filed by the respondent, this point is not to be touched. However, it does not mean that I endorse the view.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that primarily the powers to create and abolish the posts are with the Board and the Managing Director could exercise only those powers which were delegated to him and since the powers to abolish posts were not delegated, be was not competent to abolish either the posts of Assistant Enquiry Officer or Assistant Traffic Managers.
Under item No. 20 of the Delegation of Powers Rules made under rule 14, the Board delegated its power to the Managing Director for the creation of posts upto Grade-18. It is not mentioned how many posts the Managing Director can create. It is thus apparent that the powers delegated are not restricted, rather it was left at the discretion of the Managing Director to create as many posts as be required. However, the powers to create posts has been restricted upto Grade-18. Since the number of posts was not mentioned in the delegation of powers, the Managing Director was competent to create as many posts as he needed and likewise, if at any time, he felt that all the posts newly created or some of them were no longer required, he could abolish such posts without getting sanction from the Board. If quantity of the posts had been fixed, it could be said that the powers bad been res--tricted and the Managing Director in that case would not have power to abolish any post to reduce the number to which he was authorised to create the new -posts. Of course, the Managing Director is not au--thorised to abolish those posts which he did not create.
Since the Managing Director abolished only those posts which were created by him, it cannot be said that the abolition is without jurisdiction. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly held that the Managing Director was competent to abolish the posts of the Assistant Traffic Managers,
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the Punjab Road Transport Board Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules at page 7 all the three posts namely Assistant Traffic Manager, Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer have been grouped together at Serial No. 1, meaning that they belong to the same cadre. In the second column minimum qualifications are given for the three posts. For direct appoint--ment and promotion from ex-cadre as Assistant Traffic Manager the qualification is Graduate. Item No. 2 of the second column deals with departmental promotion and it says that for departmental promotion as Assistant Traffic Manager, the qualification is Intermediate, Item No. 3 deals with the Assistant Traffic Manager and Assistant Law Officer and the direction is that these posts will be filled in by direct recruitment and the qualification given is Law-Graduate. In column No. 3 the quota is given. Items Nos. 1 and 2 deal with the Assistant Traffic Manager and item No. 3 with Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer. For direct recruitment of Assistant Traffic Manager the quota is 50 per cent and for promotion for Traffic. Cadre the percentage is 30. Item No. 2 which also deals with the Assistant Traffic Manager, directs that for promotion from the ex-cadre and not from traffic cadre the percentage will be 20, Item No. 3 deals with Assistant Enquiry Officer and the direction is that they will be directly recruited from outside. Regarding the fourth column, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the intention of the rule maker is that seniority inter se of the three categories will stand integrated. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the seniority of the Assistant Traffic Manager only will be integrated. In reality the remarks column deals with only the Assistant Traffic Managers and it has no connection with the Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer. Item No. 2 of the remarks column obviously deals with the Assistant Traffic Manager only, because only in their case the question of percentage and the question of promotion from the ex-cadre arises. Regarding Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer no such question arises, because they are to be directly recruited from outside. Since item No. 2 deals with only the Assistant Traffic Manager, item No. 1 remarks column also appears to deal with the same category only. The Assistant Traffic Managers come from three sources namely, by direct recruitment, by promotion from traffic cadre and by promotion from ex-cadre. Since they come from three sources, the question arises how their seniority will be fixed, there--fore, in remarks column a direction was given that their seniority would be integrated. Only this interpretation appears to be sound and reason--able. If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the appel--lants is adopted then the position would become altogether anomalous. We have not to go far and let us consider the case of the appellants only. If it is held that the seniority of all the three categories namely. As--sistant Traffic Manager, Assistant Enquiry Officers and Assistant Law officers is integrated, then some persons from the categories of Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer shall have to be retrenched to accommodate the appellants. If this is done, the very rule of recruit--ment would stand defeated. According to the nature of duties of the Assistant Enquiry Officer and assistant Law Officer, it was provided that the minimum qualification for them would be Law-Graduate. As-- sistant Enquiry Officers have to make enquiries and the Assistant Law Officers have to perform the duties connected with law. The Assistant Traffic Managers who are not to be necessarily Law- Graduate, are not competent to discharge the duties of Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assis--tant Law Officer. It would, therefore, be improper and against the spirit of recruitment and promotion rules to make them to discharge the duties of Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer.
The framers of the rules knew that the Assistant Enquiry Officers and Assistant Law Officers, who would be directly recruited from outside would have never worked as Assistant Traffic Manager, and thus would not be able to perform the duties of the said posts, if they are appointed on those posts. Therefore, it was provided that after getting two years' training in the traffic they could be transferred to the category of Assistant Traffic Manager. But no provision was made that the Assistant Traffic Manager could be transferred to the . Categories of Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer, obviously for the reason that for the latter posts minimum qualification is Law-Graduate, whereas for the As--sistant Traffic Managers is Graduate and Intermediate. Since the appellants, who were Assistant Traffic Managers are not eligible for the posts of Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer, it is difficult to in--terpret item No. 1 of the remarks column to mean that the seniority of all the three categories will be integrated. The learned lower -Court, therefore, has come to a right conclusion that the direction- given in item No, 1 of the remarks column pertains only to the Assistant Traffic Manager and has no connection with the Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law Officer. As the appellants admittedly were junior Assistant Traffic Managers they were rightly retrenched.
8. As a result of the observations made above. I do not find any force in all the three appeals, which are dismissed. .