DECISION This appeal is directed against the order of the Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 19-2-1985.
2. The fact is that the respondent, Abdul Wadood was appointed as a Cone Winder on 24-3-1976 by the appellant-management. He was a permanent workman being the senior most and, therefore, he was promoted as a Checker on 3-3-1982. The Checker's duty was to check the production of 36 to 40 machines and to see that the yarn produce was thick or fine. However, on 26-8-1982, he received a termination order which inter alia stated that there was no further need of a Checker and, therefore, he being the junior most, his services were terminated under Standing Orders 12 and 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He was offered a month's pay in lieu of notice.
Simultaneously, he was given an offer to join as a cone winder as a fresh appointee. In consequence of the offer the respondent reported for duty on the condition that his previous service be counted. The appellant-management did not agree and, therefore, this grievance application was filed.
3. I have heard the respective counsels in this matter. The respondent denied that he was formally appointed as a Checker. In support of his contention, the respondent produced his attendance card which mentioned that he was the Cone Winder. The appellants' witness admitted in cross- examination that no formal order of promotion was passed or made in respect of the respondent.
In absence of any such written order, the respondent denied to be designated as Checker. For all purposes, the respondent was a Cone Winder and remained as such till the termination of his services. The order of termination clearly mentioned that the respondent was being retrenched as a result of retrenchment under the principle of 'first come, last out'. This fact leads to the conclusion that the termination order is not termination simpliciter under Standing Order 12. In para. No.1 of the reply statement, it was admitted that the termination was by way of retrenchment. It appeared to be a novel procedure to promote a person and then consider him the junior most in that category and dispense with his services. In view of the learned Labour Court , the employee did not lose his original seniority on promotion, and on abolition of his post, he shall revert to his original post with original seniority. This view is taken by the learned Labour Court and I fully agree with it. The respondent was Vice-President of Labour Union and he agitated for the rights of the workers. This makes the case of respondent worse and smacks of mala fide.
4. The re-employment of respondent as Cone Winder is agreed by the appellant-management.
The only point of disagreement is the question of original seniority and the back benefits. The respondent is entitled to original seniority and also to the back benefits.
5. The result is that the appeal is hereby dismissed.