This appeal arise from the decision dated 16th January, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby greivance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Ticket Collector grade-I and was posted at Faisalabad after he passed T-7B course. On becoming surplus in Lahore division he was transferred to Multan Division in 1962. He was transferred back to Lahore on his own request in 1972.
His grievance was that this colleagues were confirmed and promoted as Ticket Collectors grade II but he was ignored. He after serving grievance notice on 23rd August, 1978 brought grievance petition.
3. Learned trial Judge has held that since the appellant was transferred to Lahore Division on his own request he was to rank junior to the persons who were already serving there getting the same pay. His grievance petition was also declared as time-barred and consequently it was dismissed.
This is an admitted fact that the appellant was transferred from Multan Division to Lahore Division on his own request. According to Note I, clause (f) para. 1 of section 6 of Advance Chapter No, I of the Personnel Manual a person who is transferred to another division on his own request has to rank junior to all permanent employees drawing same pay as he is drawing. It is also provided that before the incumbent is transferred on his own request he is to be informed that he would rank junior to the persons already serving there in the same grade and declaration is to be taken from him. On transfer the appellant was kept junior to one Sikandar who though came in service in 1964 after him but appellant was transferred on his own request to Lahore Division. In these circumstances the appellant cannot have any grievance.
4. The representative of the appellant has however argued that seniority is to be fixed according to rule 1(d) of section VI of the Advance Chapter of the Personnel Manual according to the merits obtained by the incumbent in the qualifying examination and that since the appellant had passed the qualifying examination in 1964, therefore, the appellant should have been ranked senior to Sikandar. The representative has made reference to rule 11 of section II (a) of Chapter I of Personnel Manual also and has argued that in case an employee required to pass examination prior to confirmation the date of confirmation is to be either date of starting work against permanent vacancy or the date of passing required examination whichever is later. He concludes that the appellant was made to work against permanent vacancy and also passed the examination in 1962, therefore, he was to be confirmed with effect from the said date. No, doubt the rule cited is the same as the representative says but again he is ignoring the fact the appellant due to his transfer to Lahore Division on his own request lost his seniority. This is wrong that the appellant has yet not been confirmed. The appellant made many representations but he could not get new cause of action from his last representation. There is only one right of appeal and after rejection of the appeal a person goes on making representation he does not get a new cause of grievance.
Representation made by the appellant was replied on 22nd September, 1976 vide Exh. 1-7. Again the appellant was informed on 16th August, 1978, vide Exh. P-8 that he would be confirmed according to his seniority and as he was transferred to Lahore Division on his own request he would rank junior to the persons drawing same rate of pay. Since the representation of the appellant had been replied on 22nd September, 1976 cause of grievance arose to him at that time and not from 16th August, 1978 when Exh. P-8 was written to him. If Exh. P-8 had been the first information given to the appellant of course his grievance petition would have been within time. Grievance notice was sent by the appellant on 23rd August, 1978 whereas he was informed on 22nd September, 1976 about the fate of his representation, the grievance notice as well as his petition, therefore, manifestly were time-barred. The appellant no doubt filed application for condonation of delay but it was rightly disallowed by the lower Court as no cogent ground was made out.
5. As a result of the observation made above I hold that the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal which too is dismissed.