This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 20-2-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby accepting the grievance petition of the respondent his reversion order dated 24-3-1986 was set aside.
2. The respondent is substantively a postman and vide order dated 29-3-1980, copy of which is Exh.
P-2, he was promoted as technician in the leave vacancy of Muhammad Ikram. The latter did not report on duty and thus was proceeded against and ultimately dismissed vide order copy of which is Exh. P-3. Vide order dated 24-3-1986 Muhammad Hafeez was selected and was appointed as technician in place of the respondent, who was reverted to his substantive post of postman. In the promotion order of the respondent, copy of which is Exh. P-2, it was clearly written that the promotion was temporary and would not confer any right upon him to claim for future permanent promotion and that he could be reverted at any time without notice. It is clear from the order, copy of which is Exh. P-2, that the respondent was not permanently promoted. The vacancy was filled in by direct appointment after holding selection. According to the Notification dated 1-11-1975, 25% quota was reserved for promotion to the post of technician in Grade-VII. According to the said notification, qualification for being promoted to the post of technician is five years satisfactory service in Grade-V. The respondent was in Grade-IV as postman and was not mechanical mistry in Grade-V, therefore, he did not fulfil the condition of promotion and this appears to be the reason that he was promoted temporarily and when selection was made, he was reverted. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that since ignoring the provision of qualification the respondent was promoted, he could not be afterwards reverted. The promotion of the respondent was not on permanent basis but temporary with the condition that the promotion would not confer any right upon him and that he could be reverted at any time: Since the respondent lacked qualification meant for being promoted permanently as technician, his temporary promotion would not confer any right upon him and he could not challenge the order of reversion. The learned lower Court erred in holding that the respondent could not be reverted, because the notification referred to above was not produced before it.
3. The other thing is that the post of technician does not fall in the channel of promotion and thus a postman cannot be promoted as such. The channel of promotion for the postman is senior postman vide Notification dated 8-11-1988. Thus the grievance petition of the respondent has been wrongly accepted by the learned lower Court.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.