DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Sixth Labour (;ours, given on 11th May, 1982 dismissing the grievance petition submitted by the appellant against the termination of his services, vide respondent corporation's letter dated 16th September, 1981.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Office Assistant in Messrs Micas Associates (Pakistan) Limited. However, by Office Order, dated 23rd January, 1977 his services were terminated on 24 hours' notice. The appellant was, there--after, vide letter, dated 24th January, 1977 offered a fresh appointment as packing supervisor. He was confirmed in the said appointment with effect from 8th March, 1977. It appears that in October, 1977 .The Roti Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., took over the staff and the plant of Messrs Micas Associates (Pakistan)
Limited. Vide letter dated 29th October, 1977 the Roti Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., offered to the appellant the post of Packing supervisor which he accepted. The designa--tion of packing supervisor was later on changed to that of sales supervisor. Approval was given by the company to the re-designation of the appellant as sales supervisor vide letter, dated 26th May, 1981. The Roti Corporation of Pakistan Limited however, found it necessary to close down some of the factories which they had taken over from Messrs Micas Associates (Pakistan) Limited on account of heavy losses and in consequence large scale retrenchment had to be effected in the staff of . The respondent corporation. In consequence of this retrenchment and the necessary adjustment required to be made in the staff of the respondent corporation the services of the appellant were terminated vide letter dated 16th September, 1981. The said letter specifically recited that the appellant's services were being terminated on account of retrench--ment, he being the junior most sales supervisor.
3. The appellant challenged the orders of his termination from service before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed his grievances' petition on the ground that bung a supervisor he was not a workman and hence not entitled to file a grievance petition and that further the appellant being the junior most sales supervisor was rightly discharged from service in consequence of the retrenchment which was necessitated in the staff of the respondent corporation.
4. Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, did not dispute the fact that the appellant was the junior --most sales supervisor in the respondent corporation but he sought to rely on the letter dated 9th September, 1981 from the Manager, Head Office of the respondent corporation to the Factory Manager at Hyderabad, in regard to the termination of services of the appellant. The said letter reads as follows : - ---Sub :-Retrenchment of surplus staff Reference your letter No. RCP/A & C/Estab/81/2712, dated 12th May, 1981 keeping in view of the new adjustment in the establish--ment Mr. Muhammad Saleem of your Factory is rendered surplus being junior most sales supervisor in the Corporation. You are therefore, advised to relieve him of, if he was directly taken as Packing Supervisor and if he was promoted then he may be reverted to his substantive rank."
It was sought to be contended by Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi that the direction from the Head Office to the Hyderabad Factory Manager was that the appellant should be reverted to his substantive post. The contention of the learned counsel is not correct. The direction from the Head Office was that if the appellant bad been directly appointed as sales supervisor his services were to be terminated and he was to be relieved but if he was promoted as packing supervisor then he was to be reverted to his substantive rank. The appellant was not promoted to the post of Packing Supervisor but was directly appointed to that post by the letter of Messrs Micas Associates (Pakistan) Limited, dated 24th January, 1977 to which I have already referred. As such there was no question of the appellant being reverted to any post as he held no substantive post other than the Post of Packing Supervisor in which he had been confirmed vide letter, dated 9th April, 1977. No doubt the appellant was originally appointed as Office Assistant in Messrs Micas Associates (Pakistan) Limited vide letter of that company, dated 31st December, 1976 but hi services as Office Assistant were terminated vide letter of Messrs Mica Associates (Pakistan) Limited, dated 23rd January, 1977. Thereafter hi appointment as Packing Supervisor was a fresh appointment and not by way of promotion.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.