' The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Azhar All Mirza, respondent No, 1, was appointed vide appointment letter Exh. P. 1 as Accountant in the West Pakistan Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation, Lahore and the said Corporation was dissolved by the Presidential Order in 1972. The Presidential Order is No, 5 of 1972 and its title is 'West Pakistan Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation (Dissolution) Order, 1972'. Its clause 4 (b) provided that the officers, advisers and employees of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation shall be transferred to and appointed by the new Provinces, Central Government or other authorities, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions applicable to them before the issuance of the said order. According to the said provision, the respondent on the dissolution of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation was entitled to be transferred or appointed on the same terms and conditions which were applicable to him before the dissolution.
He was after the promulgation of Presidential Order No, 5 transferred to Labour Court No, 2, Lahore as an Accountant in National Pay Scale No, 10 although in the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation he was in National Pay Scale No,
12. While the respondent was serving in Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, the appellant Corporation advertised the post of Accounts Officer and the appellant made an application for the same, He was, however, taken as Accountant on 5th August, 1976 vide order, dated Exh. D. 2 in National Pay Scale No, 10 in which he was already serving in the Labour Court No, 2, Lahore. He joined duty on 11th August, 1976 and he on the expiry of the probationery period of three months confirmed by the appellant vide Exh. D. 5 on 10th December, 1976 but his pay was fixed as Rs, 530. He made representations Exhs. D. 7 and D. 8 for the fixation of his seniority from the date on which he was appointed in the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation. The representation was rejected. He made further representation Exhs.
D. 10 and D. 11 but they too met with the same fate vide Exh. D.
12. Since the case of the respondent was supported by the Presidential Order No, 5 of 1972, according to which, as mentioned above, he could be transferred or appointed on the same terms and conditions, his grievance petition was accepted by the learned trial Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the respondent was appointed on his application after he had been transferred to Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, he could not claim previous the terms and conditions under which he was serving with the predecessor corporation of the appellant. There is no force in this argument. Presidential Order No, 5 is quite clear on the point and it not only enjoined upon the Provinces and the Central Government but all authorities where the respondent was the transferred or was appointed, to place in the same terms and conditions in which he was serving in the predecessor corporation of the appellant. Even in Labour Court No, 2 the respondent was to be placed in the same terms and conditions since he had been transferred there under the Presidential Order No,
5. He had made representations to the Government which were forwarded to the appellant since in the meantime the respondent had been appointed by the appellant. Since all the authorities, according to Presidential Order No, V, were bound to employ or keep the employees of the predecessor corporation of the appellant on the same terms and conditions, the appellant was also bound by the provisions of the said order. Rather being the successor corporation of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation, the appellant corporation was further duty bound to employ the employees of the previous corporation on the same terms and conditions. Letter Exh. P. 10, dated 23rd January, 1979 was sent by the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, S&GAD to the Managing Director of the appellant corporation for giving service rights to the respondent. No document was produced by the appellant to meet the effect of letter Exh. P.
10. The appellant was bound to restore the seniority of the respondent which he had in the predecessor corporation of the appellant and to give promotion to him accordingly. Actually the order of promotion Exh. P. 11 was passed in respect of respondent No, 1 and one other person namely Muhammad Arif but so far as the letter is concerned, he was promoted but the order Exh. P.
11 so far as it related to respondent No, 1 was not implemented. The promotion order of Muhammad Arif is Exh. P.
12. It has been argued by the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 that Muhammad Arif belonged to the predecessor corporation of the appellant and there he was junior to the respondent No, I. The other respondents who have been adversely affected by the order of the learned trial Judge were impleaded as parties by the order of my learned predecessor and they too are admittedly junior to respondent No, 1.
2. From the above discussion it is clear that the respondent had very strong case to be put back in the same terms and conditions about seniority and promotion etc., which he was enjoying when he was under the employment of the predecessor corporation of the appellant. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly accepted the grievance petition and there are no reasons to have any exception to it. I, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.