1979 PLP 305 (PLC)

A. R. Razi for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, dismissing the application filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The appellant was appointed as carpenter and worked for about 7 years when on 9‑12‑1976, his services were terminated on the ground that the post of carpenter was abolished with immediate effect. The appellant served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that there was not enough work in the Head Office of the establishment and, therefore, the post of carpenter was abolished and the services of the appellant were terminated and it was also pleaded that the Standing Orders Ordinance was also not applicable as the respondent establishment belonged to the Federal Government and had been created under the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Act of 1973 and, therefore, it was a Statutory Cor poration having its own rules of service.

4. Evidence was tendered. In evidence, it was brought on record that the appellant was re‑employed on 19‑5‑1977 on daily wages for a period of one month. Earlier on 29‑2‑1977, another person was appointed as a carpenter by the Director of the Laboratories on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. In this connection, it was, however, indicated in the impugned Order that the establishment of the Research Institute was different from the Head Office and the post in the Head Office was abolished whereas another carpenter was appointed in the Research Institute and, therefore, the appellant could not make any grievance about the appointment of that person. To this, it was pointed out at the time of arguments before me that the appellant was twice transferred to the Research institute and, therefore, it could not be said that the 2 establishments were different from each other.

5. On perusal of record and proceedings and hearing the argument I am of the opinion that the Head Office as well as the Research Institute must be treated as one Unit specially in view of the fact that the appellant though was appointed in the Head Office, was twice transferred to the institute and, therefore, the appellant had a prior claim to the appointment irrespective of the fact that there was a vacancy in the institute and not in the Head Office. There is no allegation that the services of the appellant were terminated on account of his misconduct. It may be true that the Director of Laboratories was competent to make appointments in the Laboratory but at the same time, I am of the view that the claim of the appellant for the vacancy, wherever it may occur could not be ignored.

6. However, the appellant cannot be re‑appointed for the simple reason that the person who was employed after the termination of the service of the appellant was not impleaded as he is likely to be effected by appointment of the appellant and he is a necessary party. The post of carpenter in the Head office had been abolished and it has not yet been filled in, although 3 years have lapsed.

7. In view of the aforesaid serious infirmity, the application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not main tainable and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.