DECISION These three appeals are directed against separate but materially identical decisions given by the learned Fourth Labour Court on 26th April, 1982, dismissing the grievance petition of the three appellants who had challenged their termination front service by the respondent company through separate grievance petitions.
2. The case of the appellants is that they have been working in the respondent company as machine operators since 4th April, 1972, though even previously, since 1969, they had bean working as machine operators under the contractor of the respondent company, when the contract system was in vogue. 1t is alleged that in February, 1981 a dispute arose between the office-bearers of the workers' union in the respondent establishment, against some of whom there were allegations that they were working in collusion with the management to the detriment of the workmen, and also that they had misappropriated the union's fund. It appears. That on 23rd February, 1981, a requisition letter/ notice was sent to the General Secretary of the Union for calling a meeting of the General Body of the Workers' Union, to consider the charge against the delinquent workmen. The notice is said to have been signed by the appellant Abdul Ghani and some other members of the Workers' Union. According to the appellant this action annoyed the management which abruptly terminated the services of the appellants by separate. But similar orders, dated 31st May, 1951, on the plea of retrenchment. Aggrieved by these orders the appellants filed separate grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court . The main pleas taken before the learned Labour Court were that the so-called retrenchment orders were male fide and they had been victimized on account of their trade union activities and that further the retrenchment orders were in violation of the law in that as many as eight persons, whose names were given, though junior to the appellants, had been retained in service when the services of the appellant were terminated. The learned Labour Court repelled both these contentions of the appellant and has dismissed their grievance petitions.
Aggrieved by these decisions, the appellants have come up in appeal to this Tribunal. This order will dispose of all the three appeals.
3. Mr. Rafique Malik, the learned representative for the appellants, has raised before me the same contentions which were raised before the learned Labour Court . His first contention was that the appellants had been victimized on account of their trade union activities. The requisition letter, dated 23rd February, 1981, for summoning the members of the Managing Committee of the worker's union to consider the charge against certain office-bearers has been filed. It bears the signatures of eleven persons, including appellant, Abdul Ghani. If the respondent company wanted to take action against the work--man on the basis of the said letter.
It would have taken action against all or most of the persons who had signed the requisition letter.
Admittedly no action was taken against the remaining ten signatories of the letter. This would seem to indicate that the requisi--tion letter apparently had no part in the termination of the service of the appellants. Moreover, the admitted position is that no action was taken on the basis of the so-called requisition letter.
4. It was next contended by Mr. Rafique Malik that the appel--lants were not the junior-most machine operators in the respondent company and in violation of Standing Order 13, persons junior to the appellants were retained in employment as machine operators, when the services of the appellants were terminated. Although the appellants had originally given the names of eight such persons in their grievance petitions, in their evidence before the learned Labour Court , they enlarged this number to ten by addition of two more employees by name Arshad Javaid and Javaid Ahmad. It has, however, been clarified by Mr. Syed Ehtisham Rasool,, the Factory Manager of the respondent company, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court, that the said two persons were employed as sewing machine operators which b4ong to a wholly different cate-- gory of workmen from machine operators to which category the three appellants belonged. This averment of the witness has not been seriously challenged by the appellants. Mr. Rafique Malik, however, strongly urged that the eight persons whose names appear inthe grievance petitions of the appellants are junior to the appellants and they were continued in employment by the respondent company as machine operator whereas the services of the appellants were termi-- nated on 31st May, 1981. In support of his contention that the said persons were junior to the appellants in the category of machine operators, be relied upon the list of workmen employed in the respondent company as on 1st October, 1979, which was furnished by the respondent company to the Registrar, Trade Unions. The said list not only gives the names of the employees, serial were, but also states the dates of their appointment and the nature of the work which each workman was performing. This list undoubtedly, supports this contention of the learned representative of We appellants since appel--lants Nawab Haider, Abdul Ghani and Jaffar Raza are shown at serial numbers 71, 16, and 27 of the said list, while four of the eight persons who, according to the appellants, are junior to them have been shown at serial numbers 35, 37, 66 and 82. They are Rehmat Ali, Mazhir Hussain, Hassan Ali and Muhabbay Haider. The names of the other four persons mentioned in the grievance petition of the appellants do not appear in this list.
5. The main issue which falls to be determined in this case, however, is whether any one of the eight employees, who in the grievance petitions of the appellant are alleged to be junior to the appellants, were retained in employment when the services of the appellant were terminated, and if so, in what capacity. It was strongly urged by Mr. Rafique Malik that they were not only retained in service but they were retained in the category of machine operators to which the three appellants belonged. In support of his contention the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the admission of the Factory Manager of the respondent company to the effect that persons mentioned in para. 4 of the applicant's affidavits are still employed in the factory as machine operators. If this were the actual position there would be no handicap in deciding in favour of the appellants. However, it was submitted by Mr. Qadir Hussain Sayeed, the learned counsel for the respondent company, that the actual position is that all the eight persons mentioned in para. 4 of the affidavit of appel--lant Abdul Ghani and in the affidavits of the other two appellants were reverted to their original rank of packers from which they were promoted as machine operators and that after the services of the appellants were terminated with effect from 31st May, 1981, not one of them was employed or had worked as machine operator. He further submitted that the admission of Syed Ehtisham, Rasool relied upon by Mr. Rafique Malik, was either inadvertently made or was wrongly, recorded as is made clear the entire cross-examina--tion of the witness is read as a whole. The material portion of the cross-examination of the witness reads as follows :- --- I did not offer my option to the retrenched workers to act as packers. Persons mentioned in para. 4 of the applicant's affidavit are still employed in the factory as machine operators with the exemption of Arshad Javaid and Javaid Ahmed who are working as sewing machine operators.
M/s. Mazhir Hussain, Yousuf Akhtar, Rehmat Ali and Hassan Ali were appointed as packers with effect from 4th April, 1972. M/s. Rehmat Ali and Yousuf Akhtar were promoted as machine operator with effect from 1st May, 1980. They are still employed in the factory and in the category of packers.
It is correct that Mohibbay Haider 2;aidi was promoted as machine operator in September 1980."
A bare perusal of the above cross-examination seems to indicate that it was probably through some slip that the witness wrongly stated that the persons whose names appear in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of appellant. Abdul Ghani are still continuing as machine operators and he corrected himself by explaining that each one of them had been reverted to his original post of packer. That this is the cor--rect position has been admitted even by appellant Nawab Haider in his cross- examination before the learned Labour Court . Furthermore, witness Syed Ehtisham Rasool not only in the reply statement, which bears his signature, had categorically stated that none of these persons had been retained as machine operators after the services of the appellants had been terminated but he reiterated this position in paragraphs 10 and 1 t of his affidavit before the learned Labour Court. As such no reliance or notice can be taken of the admis--sion of Syed Ehtisham Hussain relied upon by Mr. Rafique Malik, which appears to have been made or recorded inadvertently. I am satisfied that none of the persons referred to in the affidavits of Abdul Ghani were continued in employment as machine operator after 31st May, 1981, but they were reverted to their original post of packers.
6. The appellants were directly appointed as machine operators and hence when retrenchment in the category of machine operators was neces--sitated on account of paucity of demand of the products of the respondent Corporation, the respondent company rightly terminated the services of the appellants while reverting those of the workmen who had been promoted from the rank of packers. In the case of Tahir Ali v. Sind Road Transport Corporation (1982 PLC 158), it was observed that the mere fact that a person who was appointed as a conductor later than certain. Other conductors but was promoted to a higher rank earlier than them did not make him senior to such other employees in the rank of conductor. Since the appellants had been directly appointed as machine operators, on the abolition of their posts they had no right or entitlement to any junior posts which they had never held. In any case, they have not made a claim to such posts.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in these appeals and would dismiss the same.