' This appeal arises from the decision dated 2-2-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore, whereby the application for interim injunction made by the respondent in his application given under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted and the appellant was restrained from implementing the order of reversion from the post of Duty Clerk to the post of Checker.
2. The respondent initially was appointed as conductor on 18-6-1968. He was promoted as Duty Clerk in N.P.S-5 on 23-4-1974. He was further promoted as Checker in N.P.S-6 on 16-5-1974, and thereafter, was promoted as Senior Ticket Examiner on 21-10-1974 in N.P.S-9 plus Rs,50 as special pay. On 4-8-1977 he was appointed as Depot Superintendent. On the abolition of the post of Depot Superintendent the respondent was on 30-6-1981 reverted to the post of Senior Ticket Examiner. On 5-12-1981 he was reverted as Duty Clerk and on 8-12-1981 reverted to the post of conductor in N.P.S.-3. Upon this the respondent had brought his grievance petition.
3. The learned lower Court has observed that reversion to the post of conductor is prima facie not correct. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the respondent was posted as Duty Clerk in a leave vacancy and he was never promoted to the said post regularly. Therefore, he had no right to be posted on the said post after reversion and thus was rightly reverted to the post of conductor.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to say that any material has been brought on the record to the effect that the respondent was posted as Duty Clerk in the temporary leave vacancy and he never remained posted in the regular vacancy. In the absence of any such evidence the lower Court was justified in holding that the respondent had a prima facie case. If any such document had been placed on the file and had shown that in reality the respondent was never appointed as Duty Clerk in any regular vacancy and further that no regular vacancy existed which his junior may be holding the stay order could be refused. Instead of chellenging the order of ad interim stay appellant should have better improved his case by placing some relevant documents on the record as the case is still in the initial stage and then he should have moved the same Court for the vacation of the stay order. This can be done even now. Since admittedly at present there is no document on the file to show that the respondent was never appointed as Duty Clerk in any regular vacancy and that at present such vacancy exists, the stay order granted by the lower Court is justified. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.