DECISION ' These two appeals are filed against a single order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV, Karachi, dated 30-1-1989, whereby he dismissed the Grievance Petition No, 106 of 1988, filed by Workman Muhammad Baksh (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') and allowed Grievance Petition No, 128 of 1988, filed by the said workman. The Divisional Superintendent Railways (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants') has filed Appeal No, KAR-143 of 1989 against the order of the learned Presiding Officer allowing Grievance Petition No, 128 of 1988 whereas respondent Muhammad Bakhsh filed Appeal No, KAR-129 of 1989 against the rejection of Grievance Petition No, 106 of 1988. I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this single decision.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Lateef Saghar, learned counsel for the Railways and Mr. M.M. Jeellani, learned Advocate for the workman in both the appeals and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the cases.
3. Admittedly the respondent was working as Hammerman at Rawalpindi with the appellants from where he was transferred to Karachi on 1-10-1985. Admittedly at Karachi he was made to work as Muawin. On coming to know of his reversion, he admittedly filed 'Departmental Appeal' on 11-12- 1985 which admittedly has not still been decided in spite of reminders. It is, however, alleged that because of filing of his appeal his immediate superior, Assistant Engineer, became annoyed with him and ordered his transfer from Karachi to Rawalpindi. Being aggrieved by these two actions of the appellant Railway authorities, the workman served a grievance notice dated 23-12-1986 upon the appellants and thereafter he filed two grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court. He filed first grievance petition which now bears No, 106 of 1988 on 14-1-1987, wherein he prayed that his transfer order from Karachi to Rawalpindi be set aside and his position as Hammerman be restored from the date of posting at Karachi i,e, 1-10-1985. Subsequently he filed another Grievance Application which now bears No, 128 of 1988 on 23-2-1987 wherein he prayed that his transfer order be cancelled and he may be allowed to perform his duties at Karachi. The learned trial Court ordered, consolidation of both the grievance petitions with the consent of the parties whereafter the appellants viz. Railway authorities filed a joint Reply Statement.
4. The learned Labour Court dismissed Application Np. 106 of 1988 on the ground that it was time- barred as grievance notice was given much after the date of cause of action viz. 1-10-1985.
Admittedly the respondent workman has filed `Appeal' against his reversion and which appeal is still pending in spite of his repeated reminders. Mr. M.M. Jeellani, learned Advocate for the workman has relied upon the case of Shakoor Ulllah Khan v. Pakistan Railways 1983 PLC 1140, wherein this Tribunal held that where appeal was presented but not replied to, the failure of competent authority in deciding appeal within reasonable time will give double cause of action to the workman, first against original impugned order and second against failure of appellate authority to pass order in appeal. In that case grievance notice was served after 5-1/2 months after preferring appeal. The grievance notice was not considered to be belated or time-barred.
5. It may be pointed out that admittedly there is no order in writing with regard to reversion produced by either party. Admittedly post of Hammerman is superior to the post of Muawin. As long as the workman/respondent was paid lower salary or was made to work in lower post he would have recurring cause of action in absence of any such order in writing. Furthermore even in the first grievance petition the respondent had not only prayed for restoration of his position as Hammerman but also prayed for cancellation of the verbal order of his transfer from Karachi to Rawalpindi which was admittedly passed on 14-12-1986. As such at least with respect of that prayer the grievance notice dated 23-12-1986 cannot be considered to be time-barred. However, considering over all circumstances of the case as pointed out above, in my opinion neither grievance notice nor Grievance Petition No, 106 of 1988 were time-barred. Admittedly no order of reversion was passed but the respondent was made to work in inferior post and was paid less salary. Such an action of the Railway authorities which is not based on any order passed by any competent authority in accordance with rules or law, would be ab initio void as without jurisdiction and would be nullity in the eyes of law.
6. The respondent had alleged that he was transferred by verbal orders of Assistant Engineer from Karachi to Rawalpindi. However, Mr. Lateef Saghar contended that the order was passed in writing, but the respondent did not accept the order. He had produced the written order before the learned Labour Court alongwith the Miscellaneous Application. The order shows that it was passed by an Assistant Engineer of the Railways at Karachi transferring the respondent from Karachi to Rawalpindi. Admittedly Karachi is separate Railway Division and Rawalpindi is also separate Railway Division. The witness of the appellants Mohammad Yaqoob has admitted in the cross- examination that 'Inter-Divisional Transfers' are within the competence and jurisdiction of General Manager Railways. He has also produced such Circular dated 11-8-1982. Mr. Ch. Abdul Lateef Saghar contended that it is not right of the employee to claim to be posted at or transferred to particular place. I am in entire agreement with this proposition, but the employee has a right to be dealt with in accordance with rules and law. The transfer had been made by authority which has no jurisdiction and such order of transfer even in writing would be without jurisdiction and void order. As such I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court with regard to dismissal of Grievance Petition No,106 of 1988 and allow the petition as prayed.
7. Mr. Abdul Lateef Saghar submitted that two grievance petitions cannot be filed after service of one grievance notice. Mr. M.M.Jeelani submitted that purpose of grievance notice is only to bring to the notice of the employer the grievance of the workman and in the grievance notice both the grievances have been brought to the notice of the employer and that it was open for the workman to file one or two grievance petitions for redress of each grievance separately or jointly. I find that in fact grievance application No, 128 of 1988 was superfluous as the relief claimed therein had already been claimed in Grievance Application No, 106 of 1988. If the order of transfer has been declared to be void and illegal the natural consequence would be that the appellant would resume his duties at Karachi until he is ordered to be transferred by some competent authority.
8. In fact the relief granted by the learned Labour Court in Grievance Petition No, 128 of 1988 is same, which was claimed by the respondent in Grievance Petition 'No, 106 of 1988 and the payment of back benefits would also be consequential to the declaration of the order of transfer as illegal or void. Furthermore both these applications were consolidated with the consent of the parties even before filing of reply statement and admittedly joint reply statement was filed in both the grievance petitions.
9. For the aforesaid reasons I see no reasons to set aside the order of the learned Labour Court in Grievance Petition No, 128 of 1988 which is in fact part and parcel of the relief granted by this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR (sic) of 1989.
10. As a result of aforesaid discussion Appeal No, KAR-143 of 1989 is dismissed.