The revision petition is directed against an order dated 24-4-1996, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, dismissing an application for ad interim injunction, submitted alongwith a grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Muhammad Shafique against the Authorities of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Lahore.
He was working as Steno-typist with the Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, C.T.R., Sheikhupura, and was asked to appear in a test to be conducted on 23-12-1993, in the office of the Director, Microwave, C.T.R., Lahore, by a committee comprising three senior officers. The date appeared to have subsequently been changed to 8-1-1994. He however, defied and challenged the validity of the move, through a grievance petition preferred before Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, on 5-1-1994.
In routine, the then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court issued a stay order in his favour, on the same day, which order has been recalled after a period of about 2-1/4 years by the present Presiding Officer of the Court , by giving, I must say, very cogent reasons. I fail to follow how has an official a locus standi and justification to challenge such an action of his superiors. His officer had, on 6-12-1993, reported that his work and conduct were unsatisfactory; he was in the habit of coming to the office late and leave it before the closing hours; he did not know shorthand and even his typing was very poor. A recommendation was made that his annual increment, due on 1-12- 1993, be stopped. The superior Authorities, however, did not do so and, instead called upon the official to appear in the aforesaid test, so that his suitability for the post, he was holding, could be re-assessed.
3. It will not be disputed that an official/officer may not keep up his normal standard of efficiency throughout his career, and the same may deteriorate, either owing to his carelessness, or by any other reasons, say some physical disability or mental impairment, occasioned by some serious ailment, or by any unforeseen factor. Can then he insist upon his clinging to the same post, or his retention in service, till superannuation? May be, this official, through influence exerted by some body which is a usual phenomenon, in our country, had been recruited against a post, which he did not deserve. Even otherwise, he might not have been found up to the mark by the officer, with whom he was attached. Only ostentation 'was not the attribute of the assignment, the official was holding. His officers had to get work from him; and if he displayed a default or delinquency, either wilfully or by reason of his inherent incapability, he could be shunted out or demoted, by of course, following the prescribed procedure.
4. No final action against the official has been taken and appears to be even insight. He was only required to make himself available for assessment of his efficiency/proficiency and he had declined to associate himself with the exercise. He had thus indulged in an at of gross indiscipline.
He seems to be a young man with a volatile temperament, as in open Court he had posed a question if an officer due for up gradation of promotion to a higher grade or a better assignment could also be asked to undergo test for determination of his efficiency or efficacy, and if such a process could periodically be resorted to, in case of officers? Well, the competent Authority could devise and put in practice such a plan or scheme, as regards officers as well, and they cannot possibly deviate or disobey, if such orders are ever passed.
5. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that so far no inquiry has been initiated against the official and may be the official gets through the test and even if he does not, no adverse action is taken against him. The respondents before the Labour Court had taken up the plea, which has been quoted in para. No.7 of the impugned order. It is absolutely relevant. The official is unnecessarily afraid of a possible action against him, or he is trying to teach a lesson to his superiors, whose competence in the matter is being questioned, and that to in a premature manner. The official has tendered before me a copy of a latest order dated 22-4-1996, encumbering him with certain additional duties or added work. It is, however, to be noted that to other officials like him have in the same order been similarly assigned certain duties in addition to the normal work or usual duties. In para. No.4 of the revision petition, he has also named an officer (D.E. Development-II CTR, Lahore) with whom he has remained attached and who has never complained of any inefficiency or indiscipline on his part. He has further questioned the eligibility of an officer to avail of the: services of a Steno-typist. Here again, it will not be denied that a subordinate cannot insist upon remaining with an officer of his choice. If such likings or dis-likings of subordinate officials are allowed to have sway, it will undermine the office discipline and impair the efficiency and output of an office or organisation, to an unimaginable degree. Officials having such thinking must not be encouraged. They rush to Courts of law for perpetration of lawlessness and not really for dispensation of justice.
6. When questioned, if any penalty, by way of stoppage of annual increment, or any action of like nature, has been imposed on him, he has furnished an answer in the negative; and I do not think that it would be possible for his superior to degrade him to a lower post, without observing all the requisite formalities. He should, therefore, have no cause of grievance on that score. If and when his superiors choose to at against the statutory stipulations or departmental rules and regulations, he may have recourse to the competent forum for alleviation of his fears and redress of his grievances, provided the same materially occur, and are not just in his mind, in the manner of hallucinations.
7. Finding the impugned order to be wholly sound, and the revision petition to be absolutely devoid of merit, I proceed to dismiss it.