1977 PLP 68 (PLC)

Case No. 18(50) of 1976, decided on 21st June 1976. -- Retrenchment-First come last go-Principle of-Upheld by National Industrial Relations Commission even though petitioner not covered by definition of workman-General Foreman of establishment declared as Essential service retrenched without any reason retaining his junior in service-Retrenchment, in circumstances, held, illegal-Re-in statement with full back benefits awarded-West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (Vi of 1968), S. O. 13 read with Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance (1111 of 1952), S. 6. 1976 P L C 581 rel. Nasir Khan, petitioner was employed as a General Foreman with the Tarbel Joint Venture, Tarbela Dam. His services were terminated with effect from 2-3-76 A. N. on account of his having become surplus. On 1 t-3-76 ha approached this Commission as an authority under the "Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952" for his re-instatement with full back benefits on the ground that his services have been illegally terminated and that junior to him had been retained.

2. Both the parties were heard. The respondent raised an objection alleging that General Foreman was not covered by the definition of "workman" and. therefore, could not claim the benefit of Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. On this point, a large number of authorities were cited by the counsel for the respondent a list of which is placed on file. These clearly show that a General Foreman was not covered by the definition of workman. On the other band, however, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an authority published in 1976 P L C 581 wherein it has been held that even if a General Foreman was not a workman, the employer was bound on the ground of equity and good conscious to apply the principle of "first come last go" in case of retrenchment. I fully agree with this authority and unless there is something wrong with an employ, he should not be retrenched when a junior to him is retained. In the instant case, it could not be denied by the respondent that one John Victor, General Foreman, junior to the petitioner bad been retained when, the petitioner was retrenched. The order of retrenchment does not show any reason why was John Victor retained and the petitioner retrenched. The petitioner was not covered by the definition of workman and if some valid reasons for his retrenchment had been shown then he could have bad no case but since he was retrenched without assigning any reason and a junior to him has been retained, his retrenchment was, therefore illegal. Consequently, I order that he be re-instated with full back benefits.