1. ' This appeal is directed against the decision made by the Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Quetta on 16-11-1982 whereby the order of the Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railway, Quetta dated 15- 11-1980 and 20-12-1981 have been set aside and the seniority of the respondent (Muhammad Yaqoob Khan) has been restored w.e.f. 9-5-1967 with all consequential benefits.
2. ' The case has assumed a chequered history. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan was a loco cleaner and at his request was shifted to diesel side and was selected as S.S.Wireman. Since training was required for the job he was posted at Quetta. He was promoted as Wireman diesel on 1-3-1962 and later confirmed on 1-7-1962. During the year 1965 he was put in the category of electrician. On the basis of a notification issued by the Railway Administration a Selection Committee was constituted.
3. ' Shakeel Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds before me:-
(a) That there were certain persons, who were senior to respondent, were not joined as party before any of the forum i,e, Selection Committee and the Labour Court.
(b) That since the initial selection made in 1965 was illegal and void, therefore, the confirmation made in consequence of that selection was also void.
(c) That promotion of the respondent at the relevant time was to be regularised on seniority cum fitness basis.
4. ' The objection mentioned as (A) above does not deserve any serious consideration for the reason that in the rejoinder filed on 25-2-1982 on behalf of the appellant before the Labour Court no such objection was raised nor the names of the persons who are claimed to be seniors to respondent are furnished in the memo. Of appeal before me. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, counsel for the appellant, however, mentions them as Muhammad Siddique and Abid Hussain. Mr. K.N.Kohli appearing for the respondent points out that these two persons had not appeared before the Selection Committee nor they had filed any appeal against the selection of the respondent or showed their grievance against the selection of the respondent herein. No other person claiming any seniority or against the selection has ever complained or challenged the selection. This aspect of the matter could not be controverted by Mr. Shakeel Ahmed. This objection, therefore, has no substance and is repelled.
5. The respondent was selected in the year 1965 by a committee constituted by the Railway itself and the confirmation made, thereafter, has been acted upon and the respondent has been paid all along. The later order of de-confirmation by the Department was in-effective as the respondent has certainly acquired a right to maintain his confirmation. The reliance of the Presiding Officer Labour Court therefore, cannot be dislodged on any legal plane. Since the order of Selection Committee and confirmtion have been acted upon and given effect to, there is no locus poenitentiate left in the Railway Administration to revise such orders.
6. ' In Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Faruki PLD 1969 SC 407, Sajjad Ahmed Jan, J (as he then was) with whom majority concurred has observed at page 412:- "There can hardly be any dispute with the Rule as laid down in these cases PLD 1956 FC 46 and PLD 1964 SC 503 referred that apart from the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, locus poenitentiate i,e, the power of receding till a decisive step is taken, is available to the Government or the relevant authorities. In fact the existence of such a power is necessary in the case of all authorities empowered to pass orders to retrace the wrong steps taken by them. The authority that has the power to make an order has also the power to undo it. But this is subject to the exception that where the order taken legal effect, and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in the favour of an individual, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of these rights."
7. ' This view of the Supreme Court has been reiterated subsequently in Raja Muhammad Nawaz v.
8. Government of Punjab 1981 SCMR 523. The case of Nazir Ahmed PLD 1970 SC 453 referred to by the Labour Court in the impugned decision is on all fours to the instant case. Respectfully following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cases I am of the considered view that the subsequent orders of the Appellant/Railway Department as mentioned by the Labour Court in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The order of the Labour Court, therefore, is unassailable in law and must be maintained.
9. For the above reasons, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is entitled to the cost which is fixed at Rs,1,000. The respondent has suffered mentally and financially for a long time in seeking redress from the Courts.