' By a consolidated order, dated 31st January, 1980, the services of a large number of officials of the S.R.T.C., the appellants herein, which included the respondent workman, were terminated allegedly on account of retrenchment. The respondent challenged the termination of his services by means of grievance petition made before the learned VIIth Labour Court at Sukkur. The said Court has set aside the orders of termination of services of the respondent workman on the ground that. It was in violation of Standing Order 13 in that the respondent was senior to some of the persons who have been retained in service and the principle of 'last to come first to go' was not followed. Aggrieved by this decision, the S.R.T.C. Has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. The crucial issue in this case is whether any employee of the S. R. T. C. In the category to which the respondent belonged, who was employed in that category after the respondent workman, has been retained in service while terminating the services of the respondent. In order to appreciate this issue, it would be advantageous to refer to the respective dates of appointments/promotions of the respondent workman and one Imdad Hussain Alavi as it is the case of the respondent that the said Imdad Hussain Alavi is Junior to him in the category of Traffic Assistant from which post he was retrenched by the general order, dated 31st January, 1981. It is an admitted position that respondent, Abdul Khalique, was appointed as time-checker on 2nd June, 1969, and as traffic assistant, which is an equivalent post on 11th July, 1969. He was promoted as traffic supervisor on 13th September, 1973, but was reverted as Traffic Assistant in May, 1977. Finally, his services were terminated by the general retrenchment order, dated 31st January, 1980. On the other hand, Imdad Hussain Alvi joined the S. R. T. C. As conductor on 25th October, 1960, was promoted as duty clerk on 26th May, 1973, and was further promoted as inspector on 24th July, 1973, and was appointed to the equivalent post of Traffic Supervisor on 6th August, 1963. He was reverted as Traffic Assistant on 18th September, 1977, i. e. About 4 months after respondent Abdul Khalique was so reverted from the post of Traffic Supervisor. Since Imdad Hussain Alvi was promoted as duty clerk on 26th May, 1973, while the respondent was promoted to the equivalent post of Traffic Assistant on 11th July, 1969, about 4 years and 2 months earlier, it should have been Imdad Hussain Alavi whose services should have been terminated on the principle of last to come and first to go'. However it was contended by Mr. Raes Mushtaq Ahmed, the learned counsel for the S. R. T. C., that the rule of seniority prevailing in the S. R. T. C. Is that where a person is reverted from a higher post to a lower post, the person reverted later becomes senior in the lower post to the person reverted earlier on the principle that while the person reverted earlier was holding a lower post, the person reverted later was holding a more superior post. This principle or rule, however, cannot override the statutory provisions of Standing Order 13, which reads as follows :- "13. Procedure for retrenchment.--Where any workman is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen, the employer shall retrench the workman is the last person employed in that category."
' As the time when the general retrenchment order was passed on 31st January, 1980, admittedly, both respondent Abdul Khalique and Imdad Hussain Alavi were employed in the same category, namely, Traffic Assistants. Since, as already shown, the respondent was promoted as Traffic Assistant more than 4 years prior to the promotion of Imdad Hussain Alvi to an equivalent grade, clearly for the purpose of Standing Order 13, respondent Abdul Khalique cannot be considered to be the last man employed in that category.
3. It was next contended by Mr. Raes Mushaq Ahmad that inasmuch as Imdad Hussain Alavi was not made a party to these proceedings by the respondent in his grievance petition, no order adverse to him can be passed without notice to him. This objection of Mr. Raes Mushtaq is well founded. However, I wish to emphasise that this Tribunal is not passing an order adverse to Imdad Hussain Alvi. All that is sought to be done by this Tribunal is to show that for the purpose of Standing Order 13, Abdul Khalique in the grade of Traffic Assistant was employed earlier than Imdad Hussain Alavi. The rules of seniority adopted by the S. R. T. C. May prevail for the purposes of promotion to a higher post, but it cannot override the statutory provisions regarding retrenchment under Standing Order 13.
4. Mr. Raes Mushtaq Ahmed finally submitted that as the respondent was admittedly promoted to the grade of Traffic Assistant in 1969, while persons in that grade appointed or promoted much earlier, even upto 1958, have been retrenched, the respondent cannot be re-instated in service in preference to his seniors. Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned representative for the respondent workman, sought to demolish this objection on the ground that even if persons who were employed or promoted as Traffic Assistants prior to the respondent have been retrenched, which in fact has not been established on the record of this case, such persons should be deemed to have waived their rights, if any, as they have not approached the Labour Court for redress. He further submitted that at no time during the pendency of the case before the learned Labour Court, it was the case before the learned Labour Court, it was the case of the appellant corporation that persons who had been employed or promoted as Traffic Assistants prior to the respondent had been retrenched. Even if the second part of the objection of Mr. Abdul Majeed is correct, this does not mean that a lapse on the part of the corporation would operate to disentitle persons appointed or promoted in the category of Traffic Assistants to continue to serve in that category or to be re- employed in that category in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 14, in preference to the respondent. So far as the first part of the objection of Mr. Abdul Majeed is concerned, namely that the persons allegedly appointed or promoted as Traffic Inspectors earlier than the respondent should be deemed to have acquiesced in the retrenchment as they have not filed grievance petitions, Mr. Raes Mushtaq submitted that 4 applications by such seniors have been filed before the learned VIth Labour Court at Hyderabad and are pending adjudication. He further submitted that another employee Abdul Jabbar, who was appointed as Traffic Assistant/duty clerk much before the date on which the respondent was promoted to that grade, had filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court at Hyderabad and the appeal arising out of that decision, is pending before this Tribunal. It is thus clear that at least some of the persons who were allegedly appointed or promoted to the rank of Traffic Assistants prior to the respondent have agitated against the retrenchment before the learned Labour Court. In the circumstances, the case of the respondent cannot be considered in isolation, since there would appear to be only one post of Traffic Assistant which is in dispute. The only appropriate course, in the circumstances, would be to set aside the impugned decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court and remand this case to the learned VIth Labour Court at Hyderabad, with the direction to consolidate this case with the other similar cases pending before it and give a decision in the matter in the light of the observations made by this Tribunal and the interpretation of Standing Order 13 vis-a-vis seniority said to be prevalent in the S.R.T.C., and it is so directed. Since the decision on remand may conceivably adversely affect Imdad Hussain Alavi, the learned Labour Court should issue notice to him and give him an opportunity of being heard before deciding the matter. It will of course be open to both the parties to raise any pertinent issue before the learned VIth Labour Court to seek its decision thereto.