' The case of the petitioner is that he is employed as Lineman II under the respondent and has been taking active part in the lawful trade union activities and has been elected as Zonal Chairman, Sahiwal Circle, WAPDA Sahiwal from the platform of Pakistan WAPDA Hydro-Electrict Central Labour Union and that the petitioner contested the elections in the recent but lost the same this time. The respondent has allegedly tried to avail the opportunity and ordered the demotion of the petitioner vide his office order No, 48/T, dated 28-2-1988. It is also alleged that the Chairman Area Electricity Board, Multan has ordered to place the seniority of the petitioner at proper place and had never desired to do what has been done by the respondent and that the same has been done just to lower the position of the petitioner and to take revenge in respect of his trade union activities and that there is no hurdle in the way of the respondent in allowing the petitioner to remain as Lineman II and that there are a large number of employees of the cadre of the-petitioner who are junior to him and are working as Lineman II and that respondent has acted at the instance of the opponents of the petitioner and ordered his demotion illegally and unlawfully and that the petitioner is being forced by the respondent to work under his juniors without any lawful reason or fault on the part of the petitioner and that the petitioner has not played any fraud or dishonesty and the respondent had promoted the petitioner of his own accord and that the impugned action is being taken to crush the petitioner so that he may not be able to contest the union elections in the future and that on 5-3-1988 the petitioner saw the respondent and requested him not to victimize him but instead of redressed the petitioner imparted threats of dismissal from service on one pretext or the other.
2. The respondent has denied the allegations and has stated that the petition does not disclose any cause of action and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the Chief Engineer, Multan Region who was a necessary party and that no specific instance and particularity of the unfair labour practice has been given and that this Commission lacks jurisdiction as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the petitioner.
3. The following issues were framed to dispose of the petition as agreed to by both the counsel:--
(1) Whether the petitioner has been reverted by the respondent as an act of unfair labour practice?
(2) Relief.
4. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and produced his promotion order No, 64/P, dated 27- 5-1980 (Exh. P.1), the Memo. No, 763, dated 12-3-1983 of the S.D.O. Sent to XEN about the work and the conduct of the petitioner being satisfactory (Exh. P.2), the order of S.E. No, 48/T, dated 28-2-1988 (Exh. P.3), the recruitment order dated 25-7-1972 of 250 persons in the Sahiwal Circle (Exh. P.4), Office Order No, 147/T (Exh. P.5) whereby Sadar Din and Muhammad Aslam were promoted on 7-7- 1986.
5. On the other hand the respondent brought on record order No, 64/T, dated 27-5-1980 whereby the petitioner was promoted as Lineman II and transferred to second Sub-Division Chichawatni (Exh. R-1), the transfer order of C.E., Multan No, 145/T (Exh. R.2), the office Order 48/T, dated 28-2- 1988 (Exh. R.3), the Office Order 56/T, dated 9-2-1988 (Exh. R.4). The appeal of Mr. Nazir Ahmad against the petitioner (Exh. R.5), seniority list circle-wise (Exh. R.6) and seniority list Division-wise (Exh. R.7) and examined Mr. Rashid Alam, Circle Superintendent as R.W. 1 and Mr. Nazir Ahmad as LW.
2.
6. At the close of the evidence arguments were heard on both sides.
7. The petitioner had admitted it correct that his promotion was based on circle level and it was made clear that if subsequently the seniority is found not to be in order then the incumbent will be reverted without any notice. He also admitted that it was mentioned in the transfer order received by him from the C.E. Multan bearing No, 145/T at Note No, 2 that the petitioner will be placed at the bottom of the cadre to which he has been transferred (Exh. R.2). He also admitted that he was illiterate and was mentioned in the illiterate list of the ALMs. He also admitted that the WAPDA has its own promotion rules. He also admitted that he was absent from duty from 5-11-1977 to 29-2- 1980 as his father was ill and he could not tell the department about his absence and the department terminated him on 13-5-1978 and that then he gave medical certificate of illness of his father on which he was reinstated. He also admitted that he has no enmity with the S.E. Sahiwal nor did he summon him nor he himself appeared before him nor even on 5-3-1988. He also admitted that the S.E. Or the XEN had not given him any threat at any time. He also admitted that he had received Office Order No, 56/T, dated 9-3-1988 in which he was informed that the period of absence from 5-11-1977 to 29-2-1980 was still unsettled and not regularized by the competent authority and that the promotion order as LM-II issued in his favor has been found not in order. All these admissions clearly show that whatever has been done by the respondent has been done in accordance with the law and rules and bona fide and that nothing has been concealed from the petitioner at any stage in any order passed at the time of his promotion, termination, reinstatement and demotion. This being the factual position proved on the record by the very statement of the petitioner, no case of unfair labor practice is made out against the respondent concerning the reversion of the petitioner. Issue No, 1 is therefore answered in the negative.
' For the reasons given above the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and as such his petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.