DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 13-3-1990, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and awarded him back benefits from 15-6-1986.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Lateef Saghar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Majeed learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as Store Issuer from 15-6-1986 and was reverted on 1-6-1988 without any letter. He served grievance notice upon the appellant and thereafter filed grievance petition. The appellant resisted grievance petition on the ground that respondent was never formally appointed as Store Issuer but was appointed as Store Handling Muawan in temporary vacancy and used to work as Store Issuer whenever required as 'stopgap' arrangement. Admittedly after the institution of the grievance petition the appellant has been appointed formally as Store Issuer from 15-12-1988.
4. The appellants have not produced any formal order appointing the respondent as 'Store Handling Muawan' in 1986. However Exh. A/5(i) has been produced under which the respondent was appointed as 'Store Issuer' in the vacancy of Abdul Khaliq who had proceeded on `L.P.R.' against the quota of `Disabled Persons' and was directed to be sent for medical check up. Exh.
A/5(ii) shows that the respondent was sent for medical check up and Exh. A/5(iii) is Certificate of Doctor showing to be fit for duty. In view of this documentary evidence and the fact that the respondent had been at least for sometime admittedly been working as 'Store Issuer' during the period in question I agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that the respondent was appointed as 'Store Issuer' and continued to work as such.
5. It is not disputed that on 1-6-1988 the respondent was posted as 'Store Handling Muawan'. Ch. Lateef Saghar contends that it was not reversion and therefore no formal order was necessary as it was the post the appellant was originally holding. I have already held that the post of the respondent was that of `Store Issuer' and as such his posting as 'Store Handling Muawan' on 1-6- 1988 amounts to reversion and is liable to be set aside as it was made without any show-cause notice. The reversion of the respondent as 'Store Handling Muawan' from 1-6-1986 has rightly been set aside by the learned Labour Court and he would be deemed to continue as Store Issuer from 1- 6-1988 and is entitled to the difference of pay from 1-6-1988 till 15-12-1988 when he was admittedly appointed as Store Issuer.
6. The learned Labour Court has awarded certain back benefits to the respondent from 15-6-1986.
It is contended by Mr. A. Majeed that even after appointment as 'Store Issuer' in 1986 the respondent was not getting pay scale of `Store Issuer'. The grievance, if any, arose to him in 1986 but the grievance petition is filed in 1988 which is obviously time-barred so far above relief is concerned. It may also be pointed out that in his grievance petition the respondent has not specifically prayed for any back benefits from 1986. The `Prayer' clause may be reproduced as under:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to get into all the facts and circumstances and after hearing the parties be pleaded to hold that the reversion of the applicant from Store Issuer to Bridge Watching Cooly is illegal, bad, malicious and after setting aside the illegal verbal order be pleased to restore the applicant as Store Issuer and he be paid all the dues and benefits to which the applicant is entitled as Store Issuer."
' The bare reading of 'prayer' clause shows that he sought relief from the date he was reverted on 1- 6-1988. As such the appeal of the appellant is partially allowed and the order of the learned Labour Court is modified only to the extent that back benefits awarded by the learned Labour Court to the respondent would be paid from 1-6-1988 only.