This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 31-1-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad, whereby the reversion order passed against the respondent, was set aside.
2. The facts are that the respondent was recruited as booking clerk on 9-5-1975. On 8-7-1979 he was promoted as ticket examiner. On 1-4-1981 he was appointed as depot superiatendent. On 19- 6-1986 he was vide order, copy of which is Ex.R-1, reverted as hooking clerk on the plea of implementing the decision of Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore dated 22-1-1978.
3. This is an admitted fact that the post of time checker was redesignated as ticket examiner. Vide order dated 22-1-1978 confirmed in appeal by this Tribunal the learned Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore directed that the promotions made in 1974 should be withdrawn and the incumbents be reverted. The respondent was not promoted or appointed in 1974. As is evident from the facts of the case he was promoted as ticket examiner on 8-7-1979 and was appointed as depot superintendent on 1-4-1981. The decision dated 22-1-1978 is based upon a settlement of 1969, according to which, all the posts belonging to the subordinate cadre were agreed to be filled in by cent per cent promotion. The learned Labour Court No,1, therefore, had directed that the persons who had been directly appointed upon such posts should he terminated and the ones who had been promoted from ex-cadre he reverted and all the vacancies be filled in by promotion from the same cadre. The respondent did not come to the posts of ticket examiner and depot superintendent from an ex-cadre post. I have already held in revisions Nos.JG-584/86, JG-585/86, JG-586/86, JG-587/86, JG-591/86, JG-592/86, LHR-649/86 and LHR-650/86 that according to the Rules of 1976, posts of booking clerk, conductor and assistant depot superintendent belong to the traffic cadre. So far as the post of ticket examiner is concerned, since the duties of ticket examiners are to check the running buses, obviously this post also belongs to the traffic cadre. In the present case no rule has been shown to the effect that the above mentioned posts do not belong to the traffic cadre. Since the respondent did not come from any ex-cadre post, the promotion order could not be set aside. The case of the respondent, therefore, is not adversely affected by the decision dated 22-1-1978. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.