The petitioner employed respondent No. 1 as Clerk/Typist. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant vide order dated 9-10-1985. The petitioner decided to re-organize his establishment and as a result thereof the Management decided to abolish the post of Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner being junior most became surplus and his services, terminated with effect from 27-4- 1.986 afternoon. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of termination through grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The petitioner contested the same. The respondent No. 2, however, accepted the same vide order dated 29-6-1989. The petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3, who partially accepted the same vide order dated 8-11-1989. The result was that the petitioners were directed to reinstate respondent No. 1 in service as Typist/Clerk with back benefits except 75 days when the respondent No.1 remained employed somewhere. Hence present Constitutional petition, which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents.
The respondent No. 1 alone has appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that the petitioners are under no obligation legally or otherwise to reinstate the respondent No. 1 as Clerk/Typist. It is submitted that the termination took place as a result of retrenchment and there was no mala fide, whatsoever. The moment respondent No. 1 was promoted he had no lien on the lower post, which was filled. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to the judgment reported as Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 1987 SC 447).
The next submission is that the reinstatement in the lower post is neither right guaranteed under the law nor settlement nor award, therefore, cannot be enforced through grievance petition. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Muhammad Bashir and others v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (1991 SCM R 2087).
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. I argued that the decision of the Labour Court was correct and he was entitled to reinstatement with all back benefits. It is added that the post was still there in view of the statement of R.W.1, therefore; the retrenchment was just a false pretext to throw out the respondent No. 1 on the road.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the both sides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan has held that the promotee cannot claim on retrenchment right of reversion back to substantive post on principle of lien. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-- "Ordinarily the word `lien' means the right of an officer to resume, on return to duty, a substantive or acting appointment from which he is relieved. Fundamental Rule 13 (Government of Pakistan Compilation of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Volume I) lays down that a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post while performing the duties of that post or while on foreign service or holding a temporary post or officiating in another post. Such right is neither secured nor guaranteed to the respondents by or under any law. The learned counsel also was unable to point out to us any provision by which he could press the rule of lien to the rescue of the respondents. In that event, the respondents cannot have a grievance over their retrenchment which was on the principle `last in first out' as contained in Standing Order No. 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.--- The decision of the respondent No. 3 runs counter to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside. The decision of the respondent No. 2 was set aside by the respondent No. 3 as noted above. The respondent No. 1 accepted this judgment and did not impugned the same.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that the decision of the respondent No. 3 as to the direction to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 as Typist/Clerk is bad in law, therefore, set aside. The result is that the application of the respondent No. 1 stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.