1984 PLP 1202 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Termination of service purportedly on account of retrenchment Other person employed for same job on daily wages basis‑Termi nation, in circumstances, not justified and legal‑Ousted permanent workmen, held, justified in refusing to accept offer of employment on daily wages. Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellants. K. M. Pasha for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1984. The decision, dated 27th September, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal. The appellants were the employees of the respondent and their services were terminated by way of retirement by the order, dated 7th September, 1981. In separate grievance petitions the appellants challenged the termination but their petitions have been dismissed.

2. This is an admitted fact that after the termination of the appel lants, other workers were employed temporarily. It was suggested to P. W. 1 in cross‑examination that no permanent workers but temporary workers were employed in place of the appellants. P. W. 1 admitted the suggestion. Even R. W. 1 stated in cross‑examination that after the retrenchment of the appellants, workers were employed on daily wages, basis.. He also said that the management was prepared to engage the appellants in place of the labour engaged on daily wages basis. This shows that there was work for the appellants. If in reality the work had decreased, no labour of any kind would have been employed. Vide order Exh. R. 4, Sabir Ali, Muhammad Ramzan and Rashid Ahmad, helper carpenters were terminated. Out of the senior fitters only Muhammad Bashir, appellant No. 7 was terminated. Vide Exh. R.. 6 the services of Niamat Ali, helper, were dispensed with retaining 12 senior helpers. Out of the two peons Muhammad Sohna, appellant No. 11 was terminated. Out of two electricians Muhammad Hussain, appellant No. I, was termina ted, vide Exh. R.

8. The services of Ghulam Hussain, welder, Muhammad Munir, Senior Fitter, were terminated, vide Exhs. R. 10 and R. 11, respec tively, retaining their seniors. Since other workers were appointed in place of the above‑mentioned persons, it is apparent that the work which was being done by them was available. If the workload had diminished leaving little work for the retained persons, it would have been distributed among the persons who were retained in the category instead of engaging other workers temporarily. This shows that there was no diminution of workload and only to convert the permanent posts into temporary, the above‑mentioned persons were terminated. This device was not justified. Fateh Muhammad, appellant No. 4, was the only driver of the tractor. There is no evidence what had happened to the tractor. There is no evi dence that the work for which tractor was purchased is now not available or that the very tractor has been sold. So, long as the tractor is there presence of the driver to drive is necessary. Since another person has been employed temporarily, it shows that the tractor is being used. No doubt, R. W. I said in his statement that the management was prepared to engage the appellants on daily wages against the temporary labour, but this offer is of no avail since the very termination of the appellants was not)" justified and legal. They being permanent employees were justified in refusing to accept the offer. The learned lower Court has failed to consider these facts and thus fell in error in holding that the termination was justified.

3. So far as appellants Nos. 3, 6, 13 and 15 are concerned, they have taken away their dues by way of full and final settlement of their service rights and their counsel has withdrawn the appeal so far as it relates to them, so they cannot take benefit of this decision. The appeal so far as it concern them stands dismissed as withdrawn.

4. As a result, the appeal so far as it relates to appellants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 12 and 14 is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision and the orders of their termination, they are directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. A. E. Appeal accepted.