2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant was appointed as Typist. Thereafter he was promoted to the position of Accountant. Due to financial constraints the respondent was compelled to drop certain projects and as a result thereof there was a general retrenchment and services of certain employees were dispensed with. The appellant was one of them. His services were dispensed with vide order dated 6-2-2003. This order has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal.

2. Along with the appeal an application for temporary injunction has been filed restraining the respondents from implementing the impugned order. Before coming to this Tribunal the appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court and had succeeded to get an interim order, valid till 1-9-2003. This order had been passed by the High Court as this Tribunal was closed due to summer vacations and the appellant had no other remedy except to file a writ petition in the High Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no general retrenchment in the office of the respondents and that the appellant was not employed on any particular project but he was an employee of the respondents, therefore, his services could not be dispensed with on the pretext of general retrenchment.

4. The application has been opposed by the respondents. It is vehemently argued that services of many employees had to be dispensed with in view of the diminishing financial condition of the respondent Company.

5. Be that as it may, it is for the respondents to determine as to what are its financial conditions. It is not for this Tribunal to look into this matter. The respondent-Company is the best judge of its financial position. As and when financial conditions demand the respondent-Company can certainly lay of its employees but for that principle to be adopted is `last in service first to go'. The appellant had been appointed as a Typist but thereafter he was promoted. In the cadre of Accountant he was the junior most. It was for that reason that his services were dispensed with. The learned counsel for the respondents has cited various rulings to show that when an employee is promoted to a senior cadre he breaks his lien in the original cadre and during general retrenchment he cannot claim reversion to his original position. Reliance has been placed on 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1032 and PLD 1987 SC

447. In these rulings it is clearly laid down that in the promotion cadre the junior most has to leave service on the principle of `last in first go' and he cannot claim reversion to his original position from where he had joined service. Following this principle we hold that in the cadre of the Accountants the appellant was junior most and his services were, therefore, legally dispensed with by the respondents.

6. In these circumstances we find no merit in this application for interim injunction as well as in the main appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. The application also stands dismissed.

7. Parties be informed. H.B.T./266/FST Appeal dismissed.