1976 PLP 334 (PLC)

S. M. Raza Petitioner. S. Nasiruddin for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 18th December 1975. The second respondent was appointed as Accounts Clerk on 16-9 1970 in the Organization of the petitioner. The petitioner is a registered Company which mainly carries on construction business and the appointment and retrenchment of workers depends primarily on the volume of work which the company has at its disposal. 2. On 26-7-73 the respondent No. 2's services were terminated by the petitioner on the ground that there was no work available for him. Accord ing to the petitioner's averment while terminating his services principles of last in first out as laid down in Standing Order 13 of the west Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Employment) (Standing Orders) Ordinance, were strictly adhered to. The second respondent filed an application against petitioner which was dismissed on merits on 29th September 1973. Thereafter he filed an appeal and the case was remanded back to the Junior Labour Court for recording of further evidence. Consequently, Junior Labour Court recorded evidence and again dismissed the application of the second respondent on 28th January 1974. The second respondent filed an appeal against this order which was allowed on 18th April 1974. 3. First Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Is That Before Filing The Petition In The Junior Labour Court The Second Respondent Did Not Comply With The Grievance Procedure As Envisaged In Section 25-A(1) To (4) Of Industrial Relation Ordinance 1969 However From The Perusal Of The Record I Find That This Objection Was Not Taken Up By The Petitioners At Any Previous Stage Therefore I Cannot Allow This Point To Be Raised For The First Time At The Stage Of Arguments Is The Writ Petition 4. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Presiding Officer of the Sind Labour Court No 2 (respondent No. 1) ailed to appreciate that the petitioner was the junior-most employee in his category and following the principles of last in first out his services have rightly been terminated by the petitioners. On the other hand the argument of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that the said principle was not adopted by the petitioner and certain persons who were junior to the second respondent were retained in service while petitioner's services were terminated which was mainly due to the fact that he was President of Workers' Union existing in the petitioner's Organization. However, my attention was invited to the statement of the second respondent in which he has plainly admitted that the company has reduced its work and therefore his services had been terminated. He has further admitted that he was junior-most in accounts section of the petitioners' Organization and therefore be was removed from employment. The exact words used by him in his deposition are reproduced below: - It is correct that my services have been terminated as being junior-most in the accounts branch". Later on, in his statement he has stated that his services were terminated as he bad become redundant and that it was also correct that at the time of termination of his services no other junior person was working as accounts clerk. In the light of the admission of the second respondent that be was junior-most in his category of employees and his services had been terminated because the work had been reduced by the petitioner, the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the termination of service was due to his Trade Union activities and that persons junior to him in service had been retained is not tenable. The second respondent has admitted in his statement in unequivocal terms that he was junior-most amongst the accounts clerks. The order of termination of services was perfectly in accordance with the Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I declare that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petition is allowed. The petitioner would however, be liable to pay all the dues of the second respondent without any loss of time. The amount of Rs. 5,000 deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court may be refunded to him. Petition allowed.