' Abdus Sattar, Ghulam Dastagir, Tasneem Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam Rana and Syed Irtaza Hasan were at the relevant time working as Supervisors in the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Out of them Muhammad Aslam Rana and Syed Irtaza Hasan were directly recruited as Supervisors while Abdus Sattar, Ghulam Dastagir and Tasneem Ahmad, respondents, were initially recruited as Assistant Salesmen but were subsequently promoted first as Salesmen and then as Supervisors.
2. Due to reorganization of the administrative set up of the Corporation, numerous posts of Supervisors were held in excess of staffing requirements of the Corporation and thus after retaining the services of the required number of supervisors on the basis of seniority, the services of junior most persons were retrenched by an order dated 24-2-1980. Thus, the services of the above- mentioned Supervisors being junior most were terminated by way of retrenchment. After serving grievance notices each of them filed separate petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. Since the questions of law and facts were common in all these petitions, they were consolidated and disposed of together by the Labour Court through impugned decision dated 21-9-1980. The Labour Court accepted the petitions of Abdus Sattar, Ghulam Dastagir and Tasneem Ahmad, respondents, but rejected that of Muhammad Aslam Rana and Syed Irtaza Hasan. The Secretary, Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision of the Labour Court has filed one appeal against Abdus Sattar and Ghulam Dastagir, respondents and the other against Tueem Ahmad.
Muhammad Aslam Rana and Syed Irtaza Hasan have not challenged in appeal the dismissal order of their petitions. Since both the appeals arise out of the same facts and circumstances, they will be disposed of by single judgment.
3. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant material available on the record.
4. The Labour Court accepted the grievance petitions of Abdus Sattar, Ghulam Dastagir and Tasneem Ahmad on the ground that initially they were recruited as Assistant Salesmen and subsequently they were promoted first as Salesmen and then as Supervisors and that if the posts of Supervisors were to be retrenched they could not be completely terminated from service but they had a right to be reverted to the posts of Salesmen which they were holding before their promotion as Supervisors. It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the Corporation that the Labour Court has taken erroneous view of the principle of retrenchment given under the W. P.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It is an admitted fact that only certain posts of Supervisors were declared surplus and therefore, junior most, according to the seniority list, were rightly retrenched. The respondents have no grievance so far their retrenchment from the post of supervisors is concerned. Their contention is that since the posts of Salesmen are still there and even certain Assistant Salesmen have been promoted as Salesmen they should have been retained in service as Salesmen which posts they were occupying before their promotion as Supervisors.
5. The question which arises for consideration is when an employee is promoted from a junior post to a senior post, if that senior post is to be retrenched whether such employee should be turned out of service completely or only from the service of senior post but not from the junior post which he was holding before his promotion to the senior post. In other words, whether such an employee has a right to be reverted to the junior post which he was holding before his promotion to the senior post and conversely is it the duty of the employer to offer such junior post to such retrenched employee. In the instant case, Abdus Sattar, Ghulam Dastagir and Tasneem Ahmad, respondents, as mentioned above, were initially recruited as Assistant Salesmen but were subsequently promoted as Salesmen and then as Supervisors. If they were to be retrenched from the post of Supervisor according to the seniority list, they have a right to go back to the posts of Salesmen from which posts they were promoted as Supervisors. Those posts of Salesmen are still in existence and have not been abolished. The proper course for the Management, therefore, was that after terminating the services of the respondents as supervisors being the junior most but should have asked them whether they would like to be reverted to the posts of Salesmen or not. To avoid unemployment the respondents in their grievance petitions themselves had claimed their right to continue in service as Salesmen. After taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, it can reasonably be held that since the respondents were promote as Supervisors from the posts of Salesmen, after their retrenchment as Supervisors being junior most, they had a right, if they so liked, to go back to the posts of Salesmen, which posts they were occupying before their promotion as Supervisors. This is necessary to avoid unemployment of such retrenched employees from senior posts. However, if an employee does not like to be reverted, he cannot be forced to go to the lower post. The choice lies with the employee. It is the duty of the employer to offer such junior post to such employee before terminating his services from the junior post. In the circumstances the Labour Court has, therefore, rightly accepted the grievance petitions of the respondents by allowing them to continue in service as Salesmen with original seniority and back benefits. Consequently, I find no force in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.