' This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 14th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.
2. The post of Jamadar held by the appellant alongwith 1,300 posts were retrenched and the services of the appellant were terminated. The retrenchment was made on account of losses to the tune of Rs, 16,00,00,000. The appellant appeared as his own witness and stated that Atta Muhammad was junior to him, but was still working at Pass No,
7. He further stated that his union had opposed the C. B. A. In the referendum, therefore, he has been victimised. In cross-examination he admitted that the respondent had made an application to wind up the mills, whereupon the C.
B. A. And other authorities decided to continue the mills as a trial for three months and that the mills was entrusted to a Technical Board. He also admitted that the Technical Board brought 1,300 posts of surplus staff under retrenchment. He admitted that at that time he was Jamadar in the bundle press section, but he was being paid as a worker. He admitted that his post was brought under retrenchment and that he received all his dues. Mian Muhammad Shaukat, Maintenance Incharge, appeared as R. W. 1 and he in his statement showing the justification or winding up of the mills added that the C. B. A. Union, Martial Law authorities, Director Administration and the Labour Department constituted a Board and decided to keep the mills running and the mills was entrusted to a Technical Board with the direction that an economy drive should be affected and surplus staff removed. He went on to say that 100 of volunteers were retired and more than 800 workers were retrenched. Regarding the appellant he said that he was Jamadar and his post was abolished and that he was not removed due to any mala fide. He further stated that no one else had been recruited as Jamadar against the said post and that no post of Jamadar existed in the spinning section. He also said that no other worker junior to the appellant was kept in service in the particular cadre.
3. The appellant did not show that he was appointed on some different post and that from there he was promoted to the post of Jamadar. The only material on the record is that he was Jamadar at the time of retrenchment and that his post was abolished. If he had been promoted from some lower post to the post of Jamadar, he could have said that he should have been reverted to the lower post. About Atta Muhammad he has not said as to on what post he was working. R. W. 1 has stated that in place of the appellant, no one else had been recruited on the post of Jamadar. If Atta Muhammad is holding some other post which had no connection .With the post of Jamadar, the appellant cannot claim that Atta Muhammad is terminated and he be posted in his place. The appellant has not shown that the retrenchment was not justified.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to Exh. R.-1 and has pointed out that though the document is dated 25th November, 1980 in paragraph 2, it has been provided that the retrenched employees who had been finally paid off before 29th November, 1980 will not be reinstated. He says that the date of finally paying the dues to the retrenched employees should have been before 25th November, 1980 and not after that. In this document certain conditions had been laid down for reinstatement of the retrenched employees. It has been provided that the retrenched persons who are paid all their dues before 29th November, 1980 shall not claim reinstated. Evidently the retrenched employees are interested to get their dues as soon as possible since they become jobless. Therefore, this provision appears to have been made that the retrenched employees who will be paid all their dues before 29th November, 1980 will not be reinstated but who are given dues after that, meaning that if payment is delayed, they can ask for reinstatement. So there appears to be nothing objectionable in this document.
5. In the above circumstances, the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.