' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 16th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore.
2. The appellant was Platform and Luggage Inspector. On 10th May, 1979 he on the strength of the verbal orders of D.C.O. Was appointed as Senior Platform and Luggage Inspector till the D.C.O. Had passed. Any regular written order. Thereafter, no order was in either way passed by the D.C.O. And instead the Chief Commercial Manager brought the work of luggage under the supervision of Commercial Superintendent, Parcel and charge was taken from the appellant. The case of the appellant is that luggage branch being separate from parcel branch, the work of luggage could not be legally brought under the supervision of Commercial Superintendent, Parcel and that the authority that did so was not competent. According to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, the D.P.O. Passed the order. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that corrections or amendments could be made as required by paras. 5 and 6 of the Preface to the Commercial Manual and as it was not done, the change brought about is illegal. This is true that luggage and parcel sections are separate but there is no force in the argument that they could not be brought under the control and supervision of one head. Para. 7.11 does not necessarily mean that the competent authority cannot bring the two branches under the control of one Superintendent. In the absence of such a provision there was no necessity of making any amendment in the rules. No rule has been cited to the effect that the Chief Commercial Manager cannot bring the above-mentioned branches under one Superintendent. If there had been any sue restriction, of course, without amending the rule no change could have been legally made. Order Exh. R-8 amply shows that the Chief Commercial Manager brought the work of luggage under the supervision of the Commercial Superintendent Parcel. So the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct that the D.P.O. Passed the order. Admittedly, the duty of the Senior Platform and Luggage Inspector was to supervise the work of weighing of luggage, so when the said work was B given under the supervision of Commercial Superintendent Parcel, the post of Senior Platform and Luggage Inspector became redundant and by the order Exh.
R. 8 stood abolished.
3. Admittedly, the post held by the appellant now and the post of Senior Platform and Luggage Inspector belong to the same Grade No,
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as Senior Platform and Luggage Inspector, the appellant could be promoted to the next higher Grade No, 11 without passing P. 15 course is not tenable as the said post and the one held by the appellant now belong to the same scale. The learned counsel for the respondents says that even as Platform and Luggage Inspector the appellant can be promoted if otherwise he is eligible. This argument has force as both the posts belong to the same scale No, 10.
4. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and is hereby dismissed it.