' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 14-5-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan whereby the grievance petition brought by the appellant under section 34 of the Industrial Relation, Ordinance 1969 was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the appellant, who was a works mistry, was promoted to the post of A.I.O.W.On 15-12-1980. The post was admittedly work charged. The appellant was reverted on 18-10-1986 and in his place Shahzada Shah Nawaz, who was holding the same designation, was posted. Shahzada Shah Nawaz was a direct appointee as sub-engineer/A.I.O.W. Whereas the appellant was a promote Shahzada Shah Nawaz was directly appointed as sub-engineer/A.I.O.W. After the appellant was promoted on the said post. The Railway is maintaining a separate seniority list of direct appointees and promotes. If the seniority had been joint Shahzada Shah Nawaz should have been junior to the appellant, inasmu ch as he was, as mentioned above, directly appointed after the appellant was promoted. But the appellant was reverted on the plea that the work charged post was abolished. This does not appear to be correct. If the post had been abolished, then no one would have been transferred to the said post, whereas this is common ground between the parties that on reversion of the appellant, Shahzada Shah Nawaz was transferred to the said post. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the post of A.I.O.W. Held by the appellant was to last up to 31-10-1986, whereas he was reverted on 18-10-1986, therefore, he was not prejudiced. On the face of it the argument has no force. The appellant could be reverted only on 31-10-1986 if on the said date the work charged post held by him was actually abolished or discontinued. However, there is no cavil about the fact that on account of the stay order issued by the learned lower Court the appellant continued workings as A.I.O.W. Up to the decision of the case. Although eh could remain as A.I.O.W. Till 31-10-1986 he continued up to the last and getting wages of the said post and thus he has not suffer any monetary loss. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that on 6-11- 1986 the appellant was against promoted against another work charge post of A.I.O.W. May it be so, but since his reversion dated 18-10-1986 was illegal, he rightly challenged the same.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and it is observed that he appellant could not be reverted before 31-10-1986 and thus he will be deemed to have remained regularly A.I.O.W. Up to 31-19-1986 and the impugned order is set aside accordingly.