' By an order dated 28th January, 1980 said to have been passed on account of economic reasons and re-organization of the S. R. T. C., as many as 292 employees of the S. R. T. C., the respondents herein were retrenched. Among the employees who were thus retrenched was appellant Ghazi Khan whose name appears at serial No, 213 of the said list. He challenged his retrenchment on the main ground that persons junior to him, including one Abdul Wahab, who is the second respondent in this case, had been retained in service, while his services were terminated. The learned VIIth Labour Court, by its decision, given on 31st October, 1981, has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the sole ground that the grievance notice served by the appellant on the 1st respondent was time-barred. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. The learned Labour Court has based its decision on the fact that whereas the order terminating the services of the appellant was passed on 28th January, 1980 the grievance notice was served by him on 12th April, 1980 much beyond the period of 3 months prescribed under section 25-A for the service of such notice. The learned Labour Court, however. Appears to have lost sight of the fact that an appeal, dated 24th February, 1980, was submitted by the appellant to the Chairman, S. R. T.
C., and this fact has been candidly admitted in the cross-examination by Mr. Sheikh Murad, Divisional Manager of the respondents. Since there is a practice of filing appeals in the S. R. T. C., the appellant was entitled not only to prefer an appeal to the Chairman, but also to wait for a reasonable time for a decision thereon. The grievance notice was served by him' on the 1st respondent after he preferred his appeal. As such the grievance notice was in time qua his appeal to the Chairman which appears to have been undisposed of as yet. In the circumstances, I am unable to a green with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable by reason of non-service of the requisite notice on the employer within the prescribed period. Although I am not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court on the ground on which it has dismissed the grievance petition. I am of the view that the grievance petition in the present appeal deserves dismissal on another very substantial ground. As already pointed out the grievance petition of the appellant is founded upon the fact that persons junior to him, particularly the second respondent, Abdul Wahab, were retained in service when his services were terminated, vide the general retrenchment order, dated 20th January, 1980. It has, however, come on record through the evidence of Sheikh Murad, Divisional Manager, S. R. T. C., that the services of the said Abdul Wahab were terminated with effect from 1st August, 1977. Vide serial No, 259. Abdul Wahab himself did not enter the witness box but he sent an application to the learned Labour Court and stated that his services were terminated being the junior most, by order, dated 13th May, 1977. However, he was later posted as Conductor and finally by the order, dated 28th January, 1980 he was reverted from the post of conductor to that of Petrol Pump Attendant. As such, Abdul Wahab was not holding a post of the category to which appellant was entitled. The appellant obviously/cannot claim appointment to the post of Petrol Pump Attendant which is neither equivalent to nor inter-changeable with the post of conductor nor he had worked in such post. As regards the claim of the appellant that besides Abdul Wahab other persons junior to him were retained in service when his services were terminated, there is no iota of evidence on record. On the other hand, it has been vehemently denied by Sheikh Murad, the Divisional Manager of the 1st respondent that any persons junior to the appellant were retained in service when his services were terminated. As such, it appears that the principle of "last in first out" has not been violated in the instant case.
3. It was finally submitted by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel for the appellant that subsequently some persons junior to the appellant were taken up by the first respondent as conductors ignoring the claim of the appellant. No such claim has been raised by the appellant either in his grievance petition or in his grievance notice. As such this claim cannot be gone into in these proceedings.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I hold that the grievance petition of the appellant has no substance, and, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.