' This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 26-6-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had set the point wrongly while giving line clear, with the result that the shunting engine was derailed. However, the appellant was not terminated on account of this charge but for the reason that he was a substitute. The order of termination is Exh. P-2, the reason given for termination in the order of termination is that he was not performing his duties satisfactorily. The learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition on the sole ground that the appellant was terminated from service by A.P.O. 2 but he served the grievance notice upon A.T.O.
2. According to rule 209(b) of the Personnel Manual Volume-I, Assistant Personnel Officer is competent to terminate the services of clause-IV employees and not A.T.O.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show either that the termination order was passed by the same person upon whom the grievance notice was served i,e, A.T.O. 2 or that not A.P.O. 2 but A.T.O. 2 had passed the order of termination. From the copy of the termination order Exh. P-2 it is evident that it was issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer. The grievance petition of the appellant has, therefore, been rightly dismissed.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.