1984 PLP 417 (PLC)

Ch. Naair Hussain for Appellant. M. S. Bokhari for Respondents. Date of hearing : 19th February, 1984 The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 20th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a cotton selector in cotton ginning factory Colony Textile Mills, Multan. He resigned‑on 31st March, 1979 and was on his application appointed as such in the respondent Mills, a s1ster concern on 1st April, 1979. His services were terminated as being surplus on 31st August, 1980. His grievance petition was dismissed and hence this appeal. 3. 1t has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the previous employer and the respondent are s1ster concerns and the appellant was employed just on the following day in forenoon, he main tained his seniority and was wrongly terminated. Reliance has been placed on copy of reply Exh. P. 8 and copy of letter Exh. P. 9 addressed to one Manzoor Ahmad. In reply Exh. P. 8 it is contended on behalf of the respondent that cotton ginning factory was a section of the respon dent mills. Exh. P. 9 shows that one Manzoor Abroad Khalid was informed that cotton ginning factory and Colony Textile Mills being one and the same thing, there would be no break in his service and the rights and obligations enjoyed by him previously would remain intact. Exh. P. 9 is not a transfer order, nor it shows that Manzoor was transferred. However, in this letter it was said that the respondent and the cotton ginning factory were one and the same thing. Even if it be taken that the cotton ginning factory is a department of the respondent, it does not necessarily follow from it that common seniority l1st in respect of the employees of both the concerns was being maintained. Since the appel lant voluntarily resigned and did neither withdraw the resignation, nor, challenged the order of acceptance of resignation within limitation and instead made application Exh. R‑4 for re‑employment, he now cannot say that his past service continued. Even if for the sake of arguments it' be said that his services continued, he has failed to establish that he was not the junior most. He did not name any person who may be junior to him.

4. It has also been argued that shortage of work was not proved. This is true that the original record from which the statement was prepared and produced was placed before the Court, yet by the admission made by the appellant in his statement, it stands established that retrench ment of one post of cotton selector was justified. The appellant admit ted that there was a decrease in the cotton purchase. The duty of cotton selector is to select the required quantity of cotton to be purchased. If a reduction is caused in the purchase, obviously little number of cotton selectors would be required.

5. As a result, the appeal being without any substance is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.