' The titled appeal arises from the decision dated 23rd September, 1984 assed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for direction promote him with back benefits to the post of Sub-Engineer, was dismissed.
2. The appellant is a Foreman. By a verbal order of an S.D.O. Be started working as Sub-Engineer. He brought an application under section 25-A for being promoted as Sub-Engineer. It was accepted and it was ordered that the appellant may be considered for promotion to the said post. It was also ordered that he may continue to work as Sub-Engineer. Since he was not promoted. He brought second grievance petition claiming promotion and the pay of the of Sub-Engineer on the ground that he was working as such under the orders of the Labour Court. The learned lower Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that since the respondents have statutory rules of service (Exh. P. 9) and the department is being run by the Provincial Government under section 1 (4) (c) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance is not applicable and that as the rules referred to above do not provide promotion to the post of Sub-Engineer, the appellant had no guaranteed right.
3. It has been argued that since the appellant is working as Sub-Engineer, he is entitled to the pay of that post. Merely working on a post cannot be a ground to claim pay of the said post unless the incumbent had been properly and legally promoted on the post by a competent authority. The S.D.O. Has no power to appoint or promote the appellant as Sub-Engineer. According to Rules of the respondent, a vacancy in the post of Sub-Engineer can be filled in by direct appointment only.
There is no provision of promotion. So the Rules do not guarantee any right of promotion to the appellant. Since he was not validly appointed on the post, he cannot claim pay of the said post. If he had been appointed in the, officiating capacity by a competent authority he could have claimed allowance but since he was not appointed as such, he is not entitled to even allowance of 12 (1/2) per cent.
4. So far as the previous order of the learned lower Court is concerned, the appellant was not directed to be appointed or promoted as Sub-Engineer, but was only asked to be considered for promotion and allowed to continue to work as Sub-Engineer: Since there is no rule of promotion, the appellant has rightly been not considered for promotion. Under the order of the Court the appellant continued to work in the same manner as he was doing before the said order. As the appellant was not working under any valid order, the Court's direction did not in any manner improve his status. So his petition was rightly dismissed.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.