' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 11th August, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re- instatement was dismissed.
2. The services of the appellant were terminated for the reason that retrenchment was made in pursuance of the deduction by the Government in quota of sugar to the extent of sixty per cent. The learned trial Judge has observed that it was not the case of the appellant that any person junior to him was retained in service. No doubt, in the grievance petition it was not specifically mentioned that his juniors were retained in service but in evidence he said that his juniors namely, Mahmood Ahmad, Nayyar Raza and Siddiq were retained in service. According to the seniority list Exh. D-4, the date of appointment of the appellant is 17th February, 1970 whereas Mehraj Din was appointed on 18th February, 1970. The date of appointment of Nayyar Raza is the same as that of the appellant, but Nayyar Raza came in the capacity of operator, whereas the appellant was Shift Incharge.
Notice Exh. P-2 is on the file of Khushi Muhammad and it contains the name of Mehraj Din, who is junior to the appellant. Vide this notice the employees mentioned therein were asked to report for duty on 3rd March, 1974 showing that either they were already in service and had been laid off and, therefore, were recalled, or that they had been retrenched and were recalled. Whatever the case may be, since the appellant was senior to Mehraj Din, first of all the appellant should have been called to report for duty and if he had failed to do so, only then his junior Mehraj Din could be recalled. This is not the case of the respondent that the appellant was called but he refused to come. On behalf of the respondent Ejaz Sheikh, General Manager, was examined as D. W.-I but he did not say that the appellant was recalled and that he refused to come. Since the record was with the respondent, the appellant could not come to know at the time he filed his grievance petition that any of his juniors was retained in service, therefore, in the petition no specific assertion could be made that any of his juniors was retained in service. Since it was the duty of the respondent to make retrenchment according to the provisions of Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 by observing the rule of 'first come last go', it makes difference that in the grievance petition, the appellant failed to assert that his juniors were retained in service. Since by evidence he has established this fact, the learned trial Judge should have considered the point.
3. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service. The appellant will be entitled to back benefits from the date his services were terminated upto date or upto the time his juniors were retained in service.