1. Petitioner has alleged in his petition that, he was Head Jobber. Hit services were terminated without any enquiry into any misconduct. He was a permanent employee. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. Written reply has been filed on its behalf. Evidence of the parties was recorded and arguments were heard.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent in his written statement as well as in arguments has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner does not fall under the definition of a workman. He was a Head Jobber. It is in evidence of the petitioner that there were only 2 Head Jobbers and in his section he was the only man. 108 workers were under him. He used to allot machines to the workers. Nothing has been asked from him regarding the fact as to what was his wages by any of the parties. So his job was a Supervisory Job and Supervisor does not fall under the definition of employee. He was Objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is over.
3. On merits learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner was retrenched from service. He joined the service of the respondent as Jobber. If the post of a Head Jobber fell surplus then he should have been offered a jot` of Jobber and some junior most Jobber should have been retrenched. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that after his promotion he became the member of Administrative Staff which was a different category. So job of an ordinary worker could not be offered to him.
4. Petitioner was the only Head Jobber in his section. He could not be offered the job of an ordinary worker. To abolish a post is right of the employer. Petition merits dismissal. It is, therefore, dismissed.