1985 PLP 1051 (PLC)

M. G. Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Commercial Assistant vide letter Exh. P.1 on the consolidated salary of Rs.1,200 per month. His services were terminated vide office order dated 24‑8‑1982 Exh.P.4 on the ground that his post stood abolished, and his services were no more required. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in this petition on the ground that no valid reason existed for the removal of the petitioner and that the plea regarding the abolition of the post was false and baseless.

2. The petition was resisted on the ground that since the post of Commercial Assistant was abolished, therefore, the petitioner could not claim as a matter of right to hold that post. It was also alleged that the grievance notice was not given in accordance with law. Besides that it was alleged that the petitioner was appointed by the then Chief Executive of the respondent, although he did not qualify for the post of Commercial Assistant. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner was rightly removed from service.

3. The petitioner entered the witness‑box as P. W.1 and supported his case. In rebuttal Ahmed Slah‑ud‑Din, Manager Administration, Pakistan Times, Rawalpindi appeared as R.W.1 to state that the post of Commercial Assistant stood abolished 'and‑‑hence‑ the services of the petitioner were no more required. In addition to that the witness contended that the petitioner was appointed by the ex‑Chief Executive, although he did not possess the requisite qualifications.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mere plea regarding the abolition of the post would not justify the removal of the petitioner until and unless it was proved that the post was abolished for want of requirement. It was, therefore, alleged that there should be evidence to show that the post was abolished as there was no work left for carrying on the said post. Reliance was placed on 1978 P L C 249 (IV Labour Court Punjab), 1978 P L C 260 (IV Labour Court Punjab), 1983 P L C 901 (Labour Court Sind) and 1983 P L C 1070 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab).

5. The learned counsel for the respondent however contended that it is statutory duty of an employer to see that the necessity regarding the retrenchment or otherwise of any post is bona fide or not. It was, therefore, alleged that if an employee was removed due to the retrenchment of post, then the Courts should be slow to interfere with such order. Reference was made to 1984 P L C 173 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab), 1984 P L C 1104 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab), 1977 PLC 122 (III Labour Court Punjab) and 1980 P L C 353 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind).

6. I have taken into account the above contentions raised from both sides and have also gone through the record. It appears that each case has to be decided on its own merits while coming to the conclusion if the retrenchment was bona fide or not. In the instant case the petitioner contended that the post was still retained but he was removed without any lawful excuse. However he did not say anything that the respondent acted with positive mala fide to deprive him of the job. On the contrary he alleged that me Mushtaq Shah and Basharat were still working at the poet of Commercial Assistant of the respondent. However during his cross‑examination he was unable to say about the present place of posting of those persons. He alleged that they were probably working at Lahore. He also added that he did not know as to what was their post or rank. However he alleged that both of them were Managers. In the same breath he said that Basharat and Mushtaq Shah were working against the post of Commercial Assistants. In the same sentence he corrected to say that Ghaffar Ahmed was working as Commercial Assistant. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner was not sure if there was any post of Commercial Assistant at present in the office of the respondent and if so, which person was working over there. In fact he rambled about to take few names but that would not suffice to say that the post of Commercial Assistant still existed. He however denied he had any relationship with the previous Chief Executive namely Mr. Sulehri. In rebuttal of his evidence Ahmed Slah‑ud‑Din R.W.1 stated that the post of Commercial Assistant was specially created by Mr. Sulehri for absorbing the petitioner. However, after the exit of Mr. Sulehri the post of Commercial Assistant was abolished by his successor in office. He also added that the aforementioned Mushtaq Shah was working as a Clerk in Lahore office whereas Basharat was working as Clerk in their office. Iqbal Butt and Ghaffar were allegedly working as Line Operator and messenger respectively. It, therefore, shows that the petitioner was wrong to say that the aforenamed persons were working as Commercial Assistants. There is no document on record to support the petitioner or to belie the respondent regarding the status of those persons. The witness was put to a very lengthy cross- examination but without any effect. Nothing could be brought out from his statement to show that the respondent had acted with mala fide to remove the petitioner. Conversely it appears that the' post of the Commercial Assistant was retrenched as the same was considered surplus by the Board of Directors. In this respect the termination order Exh.P.4 is quite clear. The respondent is a Commercial Company and it has to decide for itself as to which post should be allowed to be continued keeping in view its business and financial implications. The Courts should therefore, be slow to interfere in such like situation until and unless some positive mala fide is proved regarding the injury to the employee. In the instant case there is no such material on record to justify that the employer i.e. the respondent had acted with positive mala fide to remove the petitioner from service. The petition is. therefore, dismissed. A.E. Petition dismissed.