' The appeal captioned have challenges the correctness of the decision dated 9-3-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpinid, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his confirmation against the post of A.I.O.W. Was accepted.
2. The facts are that the respondent was appointed as A.I.O.W. For three months, where after, as mentioned in the grievance petition, he was posted as Land Inspector. The respondent claimed to be confirmed as A.I.O.W. Under an award of 1966, copy of which is Ex. P-1. According to this award, persons who worked against a post for one year could ask for their confirmation against the said post. Since according to the respondent, he was appointed as A.I.O.W. For three months only an therefore was posted as land inspector, he did not work for one year against his former post and thus he could not take benefit of the award referred to above.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the posts of A.I.O.W. And Land Inspector are interchangeable, therefore, the respondent had a right to claim confirmation against the former post under the award. Firstly, there is no evidence on the record that the posts of A.I.O.W.
And Land Inspector are inter-changeable and secondly even if the said preposition is admitted, since the posts of A.I.O.W. And Land Inspector are different, by working on either of the posts the incumbent cannot claim confirmation against the other post. The other hurdle in the way of the respondent for seeking confirmation under the award is that according to sub-para 5(iv) of the Award, efficiency and passing of test are necessary. The respondent has not proved that he had cleared the test. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, that since the Departmental Promotion Committee had recommended the respondent for the post of A.I.O.W., it means that he had cleared the test and was efficient, had no force. The requirement of the award is that the persons asking for confirmation should have cleared the test but the report of the Department Promotion Committee, copy of which is Ex. R-1, shows that only for the purpose of seniority the respondent was approved to be placed in the penal. It is not mentioned in Ex.R-1 that any test was taken. Since the respondent was found fit for being placed in the panel, it means that he was found to be efficient, but since there is no evidence that he had cleared the test, all the conditions required for the application of award mentioned above do not stand fulfilled. The other is that Ex. R-1 does not necessarily mean that the person found fit were actually working as AIUOWs at that time. The learned lower Court has failed to consider that admittedly the respondent did not work for one year as A.I.O.W. As according to the admission made in the very grievance petition only after three months he was transferred and posted as Land Inspector.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.