' This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 7-2-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore.
2. The respondent was employed as a Lineman. On 24-6-1976 he was promoted as Mistry Lineman and thereafter as Sub-Engineer. On 14-9-1982 he was reverted to the post of Mistry Lineman on the revision of the seniority list disturbing his seniority. The learned lower Court has accepted the grievance petition of the respondent on the ground that before revising the seniority list no notice as required by rule 610 of the Personnel Manual Vol.l was served upon the respondent. The said rule directs that issuing of notice to the employee to be adversely affected by the revision of the seniority list is necessary. The rule is at page 230. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the impugned order of the learned lower Court is not legal. He has, however, argued that there was no justification to allow back benefits to the respondent. Since the order of reversion was passed on the basis of seniority list that was not revised according to rule 610, the revision was not legal. The respondent was not reverted for any of his fault, so he was rightly allowed back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal having no substance is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.