' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 19th December, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a temporary Bridge Mistry. He was promoted as AIFX against a work-charged post and served as such in different projects for about five years and was reverted as Bridge Mistry on 25th July, 1981 on the ground that the project had been completed. The appellant challenged the reversion on two grounds-one is that Muhammad Sharif is junior to him who has been retained and that according to a policy letter, employees working for more than three years on temporary posts are to be confirmed. This is wrong that the appellant is senior to Muhammad Sharif. The latter is figured in the seniority list Exh. R-1 of Permanent Bridge Mistries, wherein the name of the appellant is not mentioned. He figures in the list Exh. P-3 of officiating temporary bridge mistries and the appellant is not mentioned in it. So, the appellant is not senior to Muhammad Sharif. He admitted that he was not confirmed even as a Muawin, whereas Muhammad Sharif was a confirmed Tracer in Grade-5.
3. So far as policy letter Exh. P-4 is concerned, it no doubt, says that all temporary posts continuing for more than three years be made permanent in consultation with the D. A. Os. Concerned, but this letter has no effect upon the appellant's case. Even a permanent post can be retrenched if the work has decreased or if the project is completed. The appellant admitted in cross-examination that he was appointed temporarily as AIFX in project and that Muhammad Sharif worked as AIFX in a project was for one year but after that he was appointed as such temporarily and in any project.
Exh. P-2 is the order of reversion of the appellant. It shows that on the ground of surplusage from the project, he was reverted. This is not the case of the appellant, nor there is any evidence that be had not become surplus. Thus, the appellant has no ca se and his petition was rightly dismissed.
4. As a result, the appeal having no substance is dismissed in limine.