1990 PLP 648 (PLC)

Abdul Rehman Sheikh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th September, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 1-2-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal arc that the appellant was appointed as Turner on 3-5-1967. His services were terminated in 1971 but was reinstated in February, 1972. He was terminated from service on account of retrenchment on 28-2-1983 against which he filed grievance Petition No. 10 of 1984 before the learned Labour Court which was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated vide order dated 24-2-1985. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of the learned Labour Court was withdrawn. On 30-7-1985 the services of the appellant were again terminated by way of retrenchment though respondents Nos. 3 to 6, who were allegedly junior to him, were retained in service. Aggrieved by this order, after service of grievance notice, upon employer the appellant filed the grievance petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Memon, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Rehman Shaikh, learned Advocate for the respondents and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. The only point that requires consideration is whether the services of the appellant have been terminated in violation of Standing Order

13. The appellant claims to have been appointed as Turner on 3-5-1967. However the order produced by him as Annexure `A' to his grievance petition, shows that he was appointed as Turner vide order dated 3-8-1967. Respondent No. 3 Muhammad Ramzan alongwith his written statement has produced his appointment order dated 15-4-1968. Respondent No. 4, Abdul Mannan alongwith reply statement filed his Appointment Order which is dated 4-4-1968. Respondent No. 5, Abdul Wahid has produced his Appointment Order which is dated 22-2-1966. Respondent No. 6 Muhammad Ramzan has produced his Appointment Order which is dated 5-3-1908. Prima facie except respondent No. 5, other respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 appear to have been appointed after the appointment of the appellant. Mr. Wahid Bux who filed the reply statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 states that the appellant was redesignated as Machinist from 3-8-1968 vide order dated 17-6-1968 and was re-designated as Machineman on 1-5-1970. He has produced copies of all these orders as Annexures A, B and C. He further states that appellant was retrenched on 15-6-1971 vide order marked `D' and received gratuity etc. for his services. This fact is admitted by the appellant in his cross- examination. He has also admitted that after his reinstatement on 8-2-1972 he was taken up as Machineman. He further admitted that Government has not given sanction for the post of Machineman. 1t has come in the cross-examination of Wahid Bux that on 15-6-1971 the services of the appellant were terminated while services of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were not terminated.

5. From the evidence of the appellant as well as respondent it is clear that in 1971 the services of the appellant were terminated and he was paid gratuity etc. He would, therefore, be deemed to have been appointed afresh in 1972, therefore his seniority would be counted from 1972. There is no evidence to show that the services of respondents Nos, 3 to 6 were also terminated in 1971 or that they were re-appointed with or after the appointment of the appellant. As such even if the contention of the appellant is accepted, that he was working as Turner still he would rank junior to the other respondents, who were continuously working as Turners prior to the time the appellant was reinstated in 1972. Besides even according to grievance application respondents Nos. 3 to 6 are working as Turner whereas the appellant on his own admission was re-appointed in 1972 as Machineman: Therefore he would belong to different category and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 would belong to different category. Under Standing Order 13 the retrenchment has to be made from a junior-most person of particular category. The appellant has admitted that the Government did not sanction the post of Machineman, therefore, this post would be deemed to have been abolished. There is no allegation that any Machineman junior to the appellant has been retained in service.

6. In the case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others P L D 1987 S C 447, their Lordships observed that "promotees from Salesman to Supervisors cannot claim on retrenchment right of reversion back to their substantive posts on principle of lien".

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion I find no merits in this appeal which is dismissed. M.Y.H./1523/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.