AWARD Muhammad Iqbal joined Lahore Omni Bus Service, on 13-2-57 as Assistant Painter. His services were terminated on 12-12-1958. He filed appeal. Instead of being re-instated, he was re-appointed as Assistant Painter on 1st of January 1959. He was thereafter promoted as Painter on 22-2-1960. His services were once again terminated with effect from 30-6-1966 by the District Manager. He has filed this application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, wherein he has inter alla contended, that if reduction in the cadre of painters was necessary, he should have been reverted as an Assistant Painter and his services should not have been terminated, inasmuch as he was senior to the serving Assistant Painters. He has also urged, that when the post of a painter was revived with effect from 15th of August 1967, he should have been absorbed in it and should not have been deprived o that chance, even if he had accepted the job of an Assistant -Painter 'on 16- 8-61. The petitioner thus claims, that during the pondency of industrial disputes between the workmen and the Management, the conditions of service applicable to him, have been changed to his detriment. He has prayed that the order of termination of his service dated the 30th of June 1966 may be cancelled and he may be re-instated.
The respondent in his reply has admitted most of the facts mentioned above. However, it is contended, that the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 30-6-1966 being the junior most Painter, as there was no substantive post of an Assistant Painter, against which he could be accommodated. Ten Assistant Painters, who were then on the list, were direct recruits and as such could not be reverted.
The petitioner has also urged, that he filed an appeal against the termination of his services and the same was dismissed without haring him. He thereafter filed a revision petition, which was still pending and had not been disposed of.
As the facts mentioned above are mostly admitted, the question arises, as to whether, the termination of services of the petitioner on the 30th of June 1966, was justified. Mr. Siraj-ud---Din Ahmad, Works Manager came into the witness-box on behalf of the respondent. He deposed that the petitioner, who was a confirmed Painter on 30-6-66, had to be retrenched, because the Road Transport Corporation reduced two posts of Painters. He has one out of the two junior most Painters; who bad to be retrenched. The retrenchment order is Exh. P. 1.It shows that the Road Transport Corporation vide its circular letter No. Estt. II/b9/staff/187/66 dated 24-6-1966, decided to reduce two posts of Painters and two posts of Assistant Painters. As a result of the aforementioned letter, the District Manager of the Lahore Omni Bus Service reduced two Painters namely Muhammad Iqbal petitioner and one S. Khurshid Ali, who were Painters, and two Assistant Painters named Muhammad Bashir and Channan Din, because they happened to be junior most in their respective cadres.
The question that would arise would be, as to whether, the action taken by the respondent is correct. The respondent has produced seniority list of the Painters and the Assistant Painters as it stood on 30-6-1966, the date when the petitioner was retrenched. It is Exh. R.
4. It shows that Muhammad Iqbal petitioner stood at Sr. No. 9 amongst the painters and Khurshid Ali at No. 10.
Similarly Chanan Din and Muhammad Bashir Assistant Painters were the junior most in their own cadre. It is an admitted fact, that prior to his promotion as Painter, the petitioner was an Assistant Painter. Therefore, normally if a post of a Painter had to be reduced, as a result of which the petitioner had to go out, he should not have been retrenched but should have been reverted to his original post of an Assistant Painter and his seniority should have been fixed in that cadre. It was not fair, that he should have been turned out merely because Road Transport Corporation had reduced the post of two Painters. Mr. Siraj-ud---Din Ahmad Works Manager, deposed in answer to a question that from the order of the Road Transport Corporation, he understood that two Painters had to be retrenched and he, therefore, thought proper to retrench the petitioner, who happened to be one of junior most confirmed Painters. This assumption is misplaced. Ordinarily if a person is promoted from a junior post to a senior post, he should not be turned out .of service but should be demoted to his original post and his seniority should be determined in the latter cadre. I am, therefore, of the view that the termination of the service of the petitioner is unjustified.
Mr. Shamir Khan Representative of the respondent has contended that since the petitioner had voluntarily accepted his re-appointment as Assistant Painter with effect from 16-8-1967, it should be considered that he had given up his claim; that at the time, when two posts of Painters were reduced, he should have been reverted as Assistant Painter. I do not find force in this contention. It is an admitted fact, that the petitioner filed appeal against the order of termination of his services, which was dismissed without hearing him. It is also an admitted fact, that he has filed a revision petition, which is still pending. It is significant, that he has not withdrawn his revision petition. On the other hand, even after accepting re-employment and even on the day, when he accepted it, he gave reminders to the Member (Admn.) requesting him to decide his revision petition. It is possible, that due to his straitened circumstances, the petitioner might have been forced to accept the post of Assistant Painter temporarily but that would not show, that he had given up his right to be re- appointed as Painter, as and when a vacancy occurred. Therefore, when a vacancy actually occurred and Mr. Qamar Din Assistant. Painter was promoted to fill it with effect from 15-8-1967, a day earlier to the re-appointment of the petitioner as a fresh recruit as an Assistant Painter, his right to be absorbed as Painter is revived. There is no doubt, that Mr. Qamar Din is in service as Assistant Painter with effect from 27-5-57, as one can find from Exh. R.
4. However, it is not denied that although the petitioner was re-appointed as Assistant Painter with effect from 1-1-59, he was promoted as Painter on 22-2-60 and he thereby undoubtedly became senior to Qamar Din. There- -fore, although Qamar Din according to the list was the senior most Assistant Painter on 30-6-1966, the petitioner should have been absorbed prior to him as Painter. Thus considering all the aspects of theocase, I hold that the initial order of the termination of services of the petitioner with effect from 30-6-1966 was improper. The petitioner should have been reduced as an Assistant Painter and when a vacancy in the cadre of painters occurred, he should have been promoted and not Qamar Din. I, therefore, allow his application and direct that the petitioner will be considered to have been reduced as an Assistant Painter w. e. f. 30-6-1966 (AN) and again promoted as Painter with effect from 15-8-1967 (FN). The award will be implemented within one month.