1979 PLP 536 (PLC)

S. S. Akbar for Appellant. Hassan Hamidi for Respondents. These are 2 appeals against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, ordering the reinstatement of the respondents. 2. The respondents were in the employment of the appellant and were working as Supervisors. On 13‑4‑1977, their services were terminated on the ground that the posts had been abolished. The respondents served grievance notices and filed applications under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The applica tions were resisted. 3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence, the Labour Court rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and ordered the re‑instatement by a common order. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals have been filed. 4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The learned Presiding Officer gave cogent reasons in coming to the conclusion that the posts of the Supervisors had not been abolished and the services of the respondents were illegally terminated. It is pertinent to note that two persons in the lower grade were entrusted with the jobs which were performed by the respondents and they were allowed extra pay and therefore, the salary of those 2 persons more or less amounted to same salary which was drawn by the respondents. Secondly the Payment Register which was produced by the appellants shows that the word `Sup' was shown against the names of the aforesaid 2 persons who had been entrusted with the duties of the respondents. It is, therefore, evident that the word is an abbreviation of Supervisor. In order to meet the case put forth by the respondents the designation of the posts held by the respondents was changed after the service of the grievance notices. Thus the Payment Register and the conduct of the appellants clearly establishes the fact that the posts of the Supervisors were never abolished and the services of the respondents were terminated on false grounds. It is further supported by the order of termination of services. In this, it was never alleged that the posts had been abolished but it was simply stated that their services were no longer required. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the impugned order, with the result that the re‑instatement was rightly ordered. 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.