' The petitioner/appellant was an employee as Assistant Sale Supervisor in the establishment of the respondents on 28-2-1991. However, his services were terminated on 6-10-1991 on the ground that these were no more required. He approached the Labour Court for the redress of his grievance so as to reinstate him in his service but by the impugned order dated 17-3-1993 his grievance petition was dismissed. This appeal has, therefore, been filed to impeach the legality of the above order.
' Both the learned counsel argued in support of their respective contentions and I went through the record in the light of those submissions.
' Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance provides that whenever a workman is to be retrenched then the junior most in that category should first be retrenched. In this case the contention of the appellant's Advocate was that those junior to the appellant have been retained while the services of the appellant have been dispensed with as no more required. P.W. 1 Aurangzeb, Manager Administration, stated in his examination-in-chief "The other Assistant Sale Supervisors who have not been dismissed/terminated are still working in the respondent-establishment. There are other Assistant Sale Supervisors working in the establishment Mr. Zahoor Ahmad appointed on 25-2-1991 is still working. Petro was appointed on 28-2-1991. So one Badrul Islam was appointed on 28-2-1991 and is still working." The list of the Assistant Sale Supervisors is Exh. P.W.
1. This would show that Mian Salu Shah appearing at S.No,7 was inducted in service on 1-3-1991 i,e, after the employment of the appellant on 28-2-1991. Moreover, one Badrul Islam at S.No,9 has also not been retrenched although his date of appointment is the same as that of the appellant and no reason has been given as to why the retrenchment of the appellant was preferred to that of the said employee. It is thus obvious that Mian Salu Shah junior to the appellant is still working on his post and Badrul Islam who was inducted in service on the same day as the appellant is also performing his duties. The appellant/petitioner while appearing as P.W. 2 also stated in his statement. "The other Junior Assistant Sale Supervisors are still working." This portion of his statement was not questioned in cross-examination which naturally means that the veracity of that was not challenged. As the record indicates that juniors to the appellant have been retained in service and that too without disclosing any justification for such a course. The employer has not proved that the appellant was gainfully employed somewhere else, therefore, in view of the rule laid down in 1985 SCM R 1882 the appellant is also entitled to back benefits and wages. I, therefore, accept this appeal, the impugned decision of the Labour Court is set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with full back benefits and wages. Cost would follow the events.