The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 6-8-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be_ re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The main point which emerges for decision is whether the respondent is a workman under section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance; 1968. The respondent appeared as his own witness and stated that he was electrical supervisor, but had been doing electrical work, and used to install motors and auto clave. He also said that there were three electricians and one more electrical supervisor. He also said that his work has been entrusted to an electrician but R.W. I has rebutted this piece of evidence and has said that the work of the respondent had been entrusted to another electrical supervisor, The respondent did not give the details and nature of the electrical work which is alleged to have been done by the respondent with his own hands. It, therefore, cannot be believed that being a supervisor he was doing manual electrical work. This is not believable that the work of the installation of motors and auto clave was being done by the supervisor himself, The installation work is done by the electrician under the supervision of the supervisor. If the supervisors do the work of installation, then what work will be done by the electricians. Apart from it even if it is believed that installation of motors was done by the respondent, this is a casual work. Motors and other machineries are not replaced daily. This kind of machinery goes out of order not daily, so after years necessity of replacement and installation is felt. No doubt, R. W. 1 did not mention about the duties of the respondent, but onus being upon the respondent, he should have produced cogent evidence with - regard to his duties. He has made only a vague statement not explaining what was the nature of the electrical work which he used to do with his own hands. Since there were electricians, all the work was to be done by them under the supervision of the super--visors and the latter were to give them instructions where they found some difficulty.
3. It has been argued that during ten months only four persons have been terminated when proposed reduction was of seventeen persons. This argument is not tenable. If only four persons have. -been retrenched, it does not mean that it amounts to victimization. There were two supervisors. One was terminated. As the respondent was the junior most, so he was rightly terminated. The respondent 'has not been able to controvert the statement of R.W. 1 on the point of seniority.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.