' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 16-7-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore whereby the application for interim stay brought by the petitioner was dismissed is wrong and improper.
2. On the previous date request was made on behalf of the respondent for adjournment in order to engage a counsel but on 24-10-1987 the date which the revision was adjourned for hearing none appeared for the respondent, therefore, the revision was heard ex parte.
3. The facts are that the petitioner who was Works Supervisor was promoted as General Supervisor on 14-4-1986 vide Annexure `A' against an existing vacancy. He was vie order dated 23-9-1986 copy of which is Annexure 'C' reverted to substantive post. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion in his grievance petition wherein he has applied for stopping the implementation of the order of reversion. The ground of reversion given in the order copy of which is Annexure `C' is the decision of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in reality no Selection Committee exists nor it examined the question of promotion and reversion of the petitioner. I have gone through the grievance petition of the petitioner but have not been able to find any plea wherein it may have been urged that either no Selection Committee exists or that the selection committee did not consider the case. The learned lower Court has in the impugned order said that the name of the petitioner was at Serial No, 23 of the seniority list, therefore, the Selection Committee did not recommend his promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the Competent Authority had ordered the promotion of the petitioner, without any allegation of misconduct he could not be reverted. He has cited 1981 SCM R 523. An order of promotion passed by the competent Authority may not be cancelled or in any other manner done away with if that order is otherwise legal. The case from which the Supreme Court ruling referred to above arose it was not said that the order challenged in the petition was not in accordance with the law. But in the present case as mentioned above the petitioner was promoted without the recommendations of the Selection Committee and when the matter went to the Selection Committee it did not approve the same. So, the ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
4. The other thing for which the application for interim stay cannot be accepted is that by the rejection of the application for injunction no irreparable loss can be suffered by the petitioner. The wages of Works Supervisor and General Supervisor are known and defined and if ultimately the petitioner succeeds in his grievance petition the difference between the wages of the two posts can be very easily calculated and the loss suffered by the reversion of the petitioner determined.
5. As a result the revision is dismissed ex parte.