Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. GT-645 of 1981, decided on 20th March, 1982.
---S.25-A--Termination of services on becoming surplus--Order challenged on ground of his juniors being retained--Appellant's plea found factually incorrect--Appeal dismissed in limine.
A.G. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant. Date of hearing: 3rd February,1982.
In this appeal the order dated 3l-10-1981 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement was dismissed.
2. The services of the appellant were terminated on the plea that he had become surplus. The case of the appellant was that many of his juniors were retained in service, therefore, there was no justification in his retrenchment.
3. The respondent produced seniority list R-1, and copies of the order of the Labour Court, R-6 and R-7, whereby the grievance petitions of Khalid Mehmood and Riasat Ali who had also challenged the order of their retrenchment were dismissed in default R-4. is the list of 39 persons including the appellant who was retrenched. The appellant appeared as his own witness as P.W.1. He admitted in his cross- examination that he was appointed as Conductor in Rawalpindi and on his own application was transferred to Gujrat in 1976. An employee of the P. R. T. B., who is transferred to another Depot becomes junior to all other persons who are already working in the said Depot in the same cadre and getting the same pay. The appellant was retrenched as junior. His case is that Mohammad Azam and Khalid Mehmood were retained in service who were junior to him. According to the list of retrenchment persons R-1, Khalid Mehmood was also retrenched, therefore, in this respect the appellant cannot have any grievance. So far as Mohammad Azam Shah is concerned, according to seniority list R-8 he is senior to him in as much as he figures at No.89 whereas the appellant's serial No. is 123. Since Mohammad Azam was senior to him, he was rightly retained in service. The grievance petition of the appellant was, therefore, rightly dismissed.
As upshot of the above discussion I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss it in limine.
M. I.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer