' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII, at Sukkur, dated. 25-2-1990, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant in brief is, that he was appointed as school teacher on 4-1-1972 and claims to have acquired the status of confirmed school teacher putting in service of three years. A seniority list, which the respondent Nos, 1 and 2 claim to be provisional was issued on 13-10-1987, in which the appellant was shown at Serial No, 35 as senior to respondents 3 to 12. It appears, that respondent No,12 had filed objections to seniority list and the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 revised the seniority list vide order dated 22-2-1988, whereby the appellant was placed as junior to respondents Nos, 3 to 12. After serving grievance notice upon the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 the appellant filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, praying that the order of the Authority revising the seniority may be withdrawn. The respondents Nos, 1 and 2 contested the grievance petition on the ground that seniority list was provisional which they could revise when objection was filed and further that the appellant was not a workman. The other respondents sent written statements by registered post but did not examine themselves or cross examine the appellant. Respondent No, 12, who had initially raised the objections to the seniroity list subsequently, admittedly, gave in writing, to respondents Nos, 1 and 2, that he had withdrawn the objections and that he did not claim seniority over the appellant. However, the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground, that he had not produced sufficient evidence in support of his claim as neither he had produced any letter of appointment nor he had produced the notification under which he claimed to have been confirmed.
3. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos,1 and 2 is present. The notices to ten other respondents were sent through registered post on their last known address and it would be preseumed that they had received the notices. They have not appeared today, which appears to be because of lack of interest in the case. They did not appear even before the learned Labour Court for the purpose of leading evidence or for cross-examining the appellant. I, therefore, hold the service against the respondents Nos, 3 to 12 to be good.
4. I have heard Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
5. The facts of the case are more or unless not disputed. The date of initial appointment of the appellant is not disputed though it is claimed, that he was appointed on ad hoc basis and was regularised after appearance before the Selection Committee in 1975. Be that as it may, the fact remains, that in the seniority list dated 13-10-1987, which the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 claim to be provisional the appellant was placed as senior to respondents Nos, 3 to 12. Even if it was provisional seniority list and even if the objections were filed by one of the Respondents, the principle of natural justice and equity required that the appellant should have been heared by Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 before the seniority list was revised. Even if the Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 wanted to revise the seniority suo motu on coming to know certain new facts, still it is now established principle of natural justice, that they had to give such notice to the appellant and hear him before revising the seniority list. The evidence on record does not show, that this principle of natural justice had been observed by the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 and therefore the impugned order revising seniority is illegal and not sustainable. As a matter of fact even the respondent No, 12, who had raised objections had admittedly withdrawn his objections.
6. With regard to the objections that the appellant as school teacher is not a workman and he has no right to bring grievance to the Labour Court, this question was considered at length by this Tribunal in two Appeals Nos, SUK-125/89 and SUK-304/89, referred to by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. This Tribunal has held that school teacher. Is a workman and I find no reason to disagree with the earlier view. As such appeal of the appellant is allowed and impugned order of the learned Labour Court and the order revising seniority list, are set aside. If the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 want to revise seniority list due to objection raised by the affected person they may do so but only after giving opportunity to the appellant of being heard.