' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 9th December, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was appointed in 1966 as conductor and was promoted as Duty Clerk in 1975. He was in Kot Lakhpat Depot of the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation when vide order, dated 19th September, 1978, copy of which is Exh. P-1, was transferred to the post of Time Checker. He challenged the said order in his grievance petition on the grounds that it amounted to change in his category and that the District Manager who passed the order was not competent to.Do so. He also urged that since he was Press Secretary of Alfateh Mazdoor League, he was transferred to restrain him from his union activities. His case is that as Duty Clerk he was performing duties in the office to detail the conductors on route and to maintain their attendance, whereas in the capacity as Time Checker he shall have to maintain record of buses running on routes at different parts in the town and to note down the running time of buses in order to find out if the drivers perform duties according to the scheduled time. According to the difference in the nature of duties, he says that his category stands changed by the transfer. In support of his case the appellant appeared as P. W.
1. In cross-examination he admitted that line of promotion from conductor is to the post of Time Checker or Duty Clerk or Ticket Issuing Clerk, or the Time Keeper and that all these posts belong to the traffic staff. He also admitted that a joint seniority list is maintained of the above-mentioned employees and the senior most employee out of them is promoted to the next post of Ticket Examiner. He examined Ashfaq Ahmad, Depot Superintendent, P. W. 2 also but the statement of the said witness does not in any manner advance the case of the appellant. On behalf of the respondent Atta Muhammad, Office Superintendent, D. W. 1, appeared, who stated that the post of Duty Clerk was abolished by the order of the Managing Director, therefore, the services of the surplus staff had to be utilized somewhere else. He further stated that due to the implementation of the abolition of the post, the appellant was transferred, but not on account of his union activities. In cross-examination he referred to Exh. D-1 in support of his statement that the posts of checkers were abolished. He showed his ignorance if Iqbal is junior to the appellant or that he had come from Saddar Depot.
3. The learned lower Court did not believe the statement of the appellant to the effect that on account of his union activities he was transferred. The fact that some posts of Duty Clerks have been abolished stands proved.
' The appellant has made application for permission to produce two documents in additional evidence. The documents are attached to his application and I have perused them. The first document is dated 18th September, 1978 which shows that one Mehraj Din conductor was deputed to work as leave and rest reserved for duty clerks. The learned counsel has argued that this order shows that there was necessity of the post of duty clerk, therefore, Mehraj Din was posted on the said post after the appellant was transferred as time checker. No doubt, this order was made two days after the transfer of the appellant, but this is wrong that Mehraj Din was posted as Duty Clerk.
He was posted to work as leave and rest reserve for duty clerks, meaning that whenever any duty clerk goes on leave, he has to relieve him.
' Since Mehraj Din was not appointed against a regular vacancy of duty clerk, it cannot be said that the post held by the appellant previously was not abolished. The other argument of the learned counsel is that Muhammad Iqbal was junior to the appellant therefore, on the abolition of the post of duty clerk, he should have been posted as time checker and not the appellant. To D. W. 1 a suggestion was made whether Muhammad Iqbal was junior to the appellant, but the witness showed his ignorance. In order to show that Muhammad Iqbal is junior to the appellant, another document as additional evidence has been produced which is dated 30th August 1975. It shows that one Muhammad Iqbal, conductor was on 30th August 1975 promoted as duty clerk with effect from 28th August, 1975. This is admitted in paragraph 1 of the written statement that the appellant was promoted as duty clerk on 28th July, 1975, but it does not appear if Muhammad Iqbal who is mentioned in the order, dated 30th August, 1975 is the same person from whom the appellant claims seniority because Muhammad Iqbal mentioned in the order referred to above was in Garden Town Depot when he was promoted as duty clerk, whereas the appellant is working in Kot Lakhpat Depot. There is no documentary or oral evidence to show that Muhammad Iqbal mentioned in the order, dated 30th August, 1976 is now working in Kot Lakhpat Depot. Neither the appellant stated so, nor he enquired from any witness about it. Since the possibility cannot be excluded that Muhammad Iqbal mentioned in the document dated 30th August, 1975 may be a different man who may not be posted at present in Kot Lakhpat Depot. It cannot be said that in reality any junior of the appellant was retained as duty clerk and the appellant was dislocated. The additional evidence, therefore, is not sufficient to advance the case of the appellant, therefore, these two documents are not required for the correct decision of the appeal. Needless to say that only that additional evidence at A the appellate stage can be allowed which is necessary for the correct decision of the appeal. In this respect reference may be made to Order XLI, rule 271 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.