DECISION ' I propose to dispose of all the aforementioned 10 suo motu Revision Applications by this single order as points of fact and law involved in all the applications are same or similar.
2. I have heard Mr. Azamtullah, Deputy Manager appearing for the applicants and Mr. Latif Saghar appearing for the respondents in all the applications.
3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that all the respondents were initially employed by the applicant as Conductors. They claim that since several years they have been working in higher grade as Traffic Assistants or Assistants Yard Masters.' However the applicant by order dated 27-11- 1990 directed the respondents to work again as Conductors. The respondents claim that by operation of Standing Orders Ordinance and other rules of service, they would be deemed to have been permanently appointed in the higher grade and therefore their reappointment as conductors would amount to reversion. They, therefore, after serving grievance notice, filed separate grievance petitions before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court directed the maintenance of status quo pending the decision of grievance applications, which orders have been challenged by the applicants by these suo motu revision applications.
4. Mr. Latif Saghar submits that the applicants have in fact partly admitted the claim of the respondents as by an order dated 23rd April, 1991, 17 Conductors and one driver have been promoted in higher grade which order includes names of the respondents Mirza Ghulam Abbas, Amir Afzal, Jamaluddin and Marghoob Hussain. He has produced photostat copy of the said order of the Secretary KTC, issuance of which order is not disputed by Mr. Azmatullah Khan.
5. I have also gone through the impugned orders passed by learned Labour Court which are well- reasoned. The fact that the applicant himself has promoted the 4 respondents during the pendency of the grievance applications while the impugned order was in force lends justification to the issuance of order of status quo by the learned Labour Court. I find no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court to call for any interference by this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. All the 10 revision applications are therefore dismissed.