' The decision, dated 31st July, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent was a Salesman and was promoted as a Supervisor in February, 1977. The post of Supervisor was retrenched and as a result the respondent's services were terminated. Since the respondent had not been recruited directly on the post of Supervisor but had been promoted from the post of Salesman, he was to be reverted as Salesman on the retrenchment of the post of Supervisor. This is not the case of the appellant that the post of Salesman too was abolished. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel that for the appellant that on promotion to a permanent post the incumbent losses his right over the lower post wherefrom he was promoted. It has been said that the decision of this Tribunal in appeal titled as "Utility Stores Corporation v. Abdul Sattar" decided on 10th January, 1981 on the basis of which the learned lower Court has accepted the grievance petition of the respondent, has been challenged before the Supreme Court and the case has been admitted for regular hearing. Firstly, the learned counsel has not brought on the file a copy of the order of admission recorded by the Supreme Court and secondly even if it is so, it is not necessary to adjourn this appeal sine die. The learned lower Court has rightly held that the respondent should have been, instead of being terminated, reverted to the post of Salesman, terminating the services of the junior most Salesman.
3. As a result the appeal having no merits is dismissed in limine.