' Anwar respondent was appointed as Mate of Gang No, 13 on 15th February 1973, on the occurrence of a vacancy caused by the transfer of one Nizam Mate of Gang No, 14, Pattoki, to Walton Training School. Subsequently the P. W. I Okara ordered the reversion of the respondent from the post of Mate to that of Keyman in Gang No, 14 on 28th May 1974, and also ordered the transfer of certain other mates and promotion of one Abdul Khalique, Keyman to that of Gangmate.
2. The respondent felt aggrieved of this order. He served a grievance notice on the appellant viz. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and ultimately he filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Junior Labour Court seeking his re- instatement as Gangmate with consequential benefits. He contended in the application that he had filed an application under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Lahore claiming the payment of wrongfully deducted wages. In connection with the said application, the Divisional Superintendent called the comments of P. W. I, Okara who felt offended and in an arbitrary manner ordered the reversion of the respondent wrongfully and in his place promoted Abdul Khalique who was junior to him.
3. This application of the respondent was opposed by the appellant who pleaded that actually the respondent was not promoted as Mate on permanent basis but as a purely temporary arrangement. He was given the charge of the post of Gangmate and subsequently he was reverted to his substantive post in due course.
4. Muhammad Anwar respondent appeared as his own witness before the learned Court below while Mr. Jamshaid Mirza Afandi, P. W. 1 Okara appeared on behalf of the appellant.
5. After considering the parties evidence the learned lower Court found that reversion of the respondent was wrongful as he was reverted while a person junior to him was promoted.
Consequently by the order dated 9th January 1976 the application of the respondent filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was accepted with back benefits. This order dated 9th January 1975 of the learned lower Court has been impugned through the present appeal.
6. 1 have carefully gone through the records of the case and the parties have also been heard at considerable length. It is true that the respondent Anwar was simply ordered to officiate as Mate purely on temporary basis in Gang No, 13 on account of the vacancy caused by the transfer of one Nizam. The respondent could be reverted at any time when regular arrangements were made and the vacancy was filled by a substantive incumbent. In the circumstances of this case however. P.
W. 1 Okara in an arbitrary manner without happening of any such eventuality i,e, the order regarding regular arrangements or posting of some substantive incumbent ordered the reversion of the respondent on 28th May 1974 to a substantive man. While doing so he ordered the transfer of 3 other mates and also promotion of one Abdul Khalique. This Abdul Khalique as well as the respondent Anwar were confirmed as Keyman on the same date viz. 15th October 1968. Both of them originally joined the service as Gangman. The respondent was appointed as Gangman on 20th June 1944 while Abdul Khalique was appointed as Gangman on 15th September 1967. Abdul Khalique is therefore positively junior to Anwar. According to rule 1 (a) (ii) of section VI of Advance Chapter No, 1 of Personnel Manual of Railways if the date of confirmation of two employees in an initial grade is one and the same, the seniority is to be determined by the date of their appointment. In this manner Anwar is senior to Abdul Khalique. He is being shown as such in Exh. R-
3. This is also common ground between the parties that both Anwar and Abdul Khalique have not so far qualified the prescribed examination for the appointment of Mate. Abdul Khalique however has been promoted in preference to Anwar by reverting later although he happens to be senior to the former. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Abdul Ithalique is a Matriculate and he has also worked as Mistri whereas the respondent was not so qualified. Mr. Afandi while appearing as appellant's witness before the lower Court could not contradict the suggestion that Anwar was educated upto middle standard. It is noteworthy that matriculation or middle standard have not been prescribed as qualification for appointment as Mate. The experience as Mistri has also no relevancy for such appointment.
7. In view of the above, we conclude that P. W. 1 Okara wrongfully promoted Abdul Khalique by reverting Anwar respondent who was otherwise senior to Abdul Khalique.
8. In this view of the matter, the learned lower Court has justi-A fiably accepted the application of Anwar, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I would accordingly uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Appeal.