' The respondents were taken as skilled workers by direct appointment. There were some other skilled workers, who had been promoted from unskilled posts of the posts of skilled workers.
According to rules, after both types of employees had become skilled workers, joint seniority list was maintained according to the date of entry in the cadre and according to seniority, promotion was to be made out of them to the post of Mistry. On 13th January 1973 a policy letter was issued by the Railway. The respondents who had been directly appointed as skilled workers brought a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, praying for the implementation of the policy letter referred to above. The promotee skilled workers were not impleaded as party. On the statement of the representative of Railway the Labour Court decided the case directing that the Railway would act according to the terms of the policy letter. Thereafter, the respondents brought a contempt petition in this Court, which was decided on the statement of Mr. Yousuf Kkokhar, Senior Porsonnel Officer, Railway. He stated that the Railway would act according to the policy letter, dated 13th January, 1973 and further undertook that till all the respondents had been promoted to the post of Mistry, none from the promotee skilled workers would be promoted. My learned predecessor issued direction accordingly and disposed off the contempt petition. Now the Railway has made a miscellaneous application for ignoring the direction given by my learned predecessor to the effect that before the respondents are promoted as Mistry, none from the promotees skilled workers would be promoted. The learned counsel says that Mr. Yousuf Khokhar, Senior Personnel Officer, was not competent to make such a statement in order to deprive the promotee skilled workers from further promotion as Mistry till the respondents had been promoted. He has also argued that this Tribunal while dealing with the contempt petition had no jurisdiction to pass such orders. On the statement of the parties any order may be passed, which does not jeopardize the rights of the others. But whatever the case may be, not having any powers of review, neither I can add to nor substract anything from the orders passed by my learned predecessor, irrespective of the fact whether the orders is jnstified or not. The promotee skilled workers have made an application for being impleaded as party to the miscellaneous petition brought by the Railway and their case is the same as that of the Railway. Since the Railway is fighting the case, it is not necessary to implead the said persons as parties. Since I have no jurisdiction to change the orders passed by my learned predecessor, for this reason also, it is not necessary to implead the promotee ckilled workers as party to the miscellaneous petition brought by the Railway.
2. As a result of the observations made above, I reject the miscellaneous application of the Railway as well as the application of Haji Muhammad Ramzan and others for being impleaded as parties.