1976 PLP 185 (PLC)

2. Apart from obtaining written comments from the respondent, the parties were given an opportunity to produce evidence if any, in support of their respective contentions. Both the petitioner as well the Representative of the respondent gave their own statements and concluded their evidence.

3. The parties were heard at length. The petitioner was directed to furnish copy of the retrenchment order which he did and which is marked as Exh. P/1.

4. The representative of the respondent has admitted the following facts in his statement recorded on 18th September 1975: - (a) That the persons whose badge numbers have been mentioned in the petition are junior to the petitioner, who are still working at the project as Security Guards.

5. It is pertinent to note that alongwith written comments filed on behalf of respondent copy of the minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the Government, the Management and the C.B.A. Union was also filed which is Exh. PA, on the file and about this document the representative of the respondent has stated that, "Exh. DA is the copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 8th May 1972 between the Representatives of the Government, the Authority and the Union. It is correct that according to the minutes copy Exh. DA, the Department of Security, Safety and Fire were held to be all independent and it was decided that retrenchment in these sections would take place on project basis on the principle, of last come first go as against the retrenchment in other categories about which it was decided that the retrenchment in those categories was to be on section basis and not category -wise on whole-project basis .

6. That being so the retrenchment of the petitioner when he was trans ferred from the project at TJ v to Daulatpur (Send) was wrong, illegal, against natural justice and equity because the principle of last come first go ought to have been kept to view and retrenchment ought to have been made on project-basis. The petitioner having been originally hired as Security Guard at the Project at TJV. The retrenchment order marked 'Exh. P/1' is also wrong because it states that consequent upon the completion of the works on which you were employed, it has become necessary to reduce the strength of workers. Your services are therefore, terminated w. e. f. 12th September 1974 due to redundancy". Now it is quite contrary to the true fact which is that mere transfer to Daulatpur (Sind) can by no stretch of imagination be treated as an employment on the work at Daulatpur (Sind), the petitioner having been originally employed to work as Security Guard at TJV and for TJV at Tarbela, and by no cannons of justice could his services be terminated on completion of work at Daulatpur (Sind). there being many persons junior to him at the project and as such it was incumbent on the respondent to order him back at the project at Tarbela, and in case retrenchment was necessary the principle of 'last come first go' ought to have been followed, and the petitioner admittedly being senior to so many Security Guards at TJV Tarbela ought to have been retained in service. I may add that there are Authorities on the point that after enforcement of Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 the other Labour Laws, i.e. I. R. O. and the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 stood suspended but I acting as an Authority under Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 have at least to see whether certain action taken by the Management was justified or not and for that I may not refer or depend on the provisions of West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, but may follow the principles of natural justice and equity and the principle of last come first go is one of the principles which is in conformity with natural justice and equity, which has been ignored in the case of the petitioner.

7. In view of the above discussion, I direct as under :- (i) Muhammad Sabir ex-Security Guard B. No. 10747 be re-instated as such at TJV Tarbela. (ii) The period commencing from the date of his retrenchment Le. 12th September 1974 till the date of his re-instatement be treated as leave without pay so that there should not be any break in his service. (iii) That the petitioner is to retain his Badge No. 10747. (ii) As the petitioner did not work since 12th September 1974 I do nor think it just and equitable to burden the respondent with payment of, any back benefits.