1988 PLP 80 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 24th March, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 28-9-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Storekeeper in the Mechanical Engineering Department on work-charge establishment on 1-4-1971 and the nature of duties used to be performed by him was clerical and manual. On 1-7-1982 all the work-charge establishment workers were converted into regular cadre, therefore, the respondent also stood converted into regular cadre. On 19-7-1982, the respondent was verbally relieved and was advised to report for duty on deputation to Tube well Operation Division on SCARP-Sakrand. But, as his services on transfer/ deputation was not required necessary by the Executive Engineer SCARP, and it was also without sanction of the competent authority, therefore, the respondent vide letter, dated 17-2-1983 was directed to contact to his original office for continuation of his service. According, to the respondent, despite all his best and tireless efforts, he was not allowed by Mechanical Engineer-1 appellant No.l, to joint duties and though he was the senior most Assistant Store-keeper in the Division, yet appellant Nos.2 to 3 namely, Muhammad Tasleem and Kamaldin who were junior to him were still working. Further, the case of the respondent was that the refusal to allow joining the duties by Mechanical Engineer was quite illegal, therefore, the respondent served a grievance notice and thereafter grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court.

3. The appellants resisted the petition on that ground that the work-charged establishment of Irrigation Department were governed under the rules of P.W.D. Manual Vol. I and II and that the respondent was brought on regular establishment as there was no feasibility to convert the work-charge establishment of Tubewell Scheme of Dolatpur Reversion Area and that the respondent was relieved by the A. E. N Pumping Division on verbal discussion and written demand of A.E.N. Mechanical Sub-Division. Moro, therefore, the respondent willingly accepted his transfer and joined his duties at More with effect from 19.782 till he was transferred to Tube well Operation Division No. II and was working in the Mechanical Sub-Division Moro for about seven months and had retained his lien in that Division, therefore, according to the appellants, the grievance petition of the respondent was lead in Law for non-joinder of the necessary parties as the P.D. SCARP. Khairpur was the necessary party, therefore, the grievance petition of the respondent be also dismissed as not maintainable.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement by Mechanical Engineer, Upper Sind Mechanical Division, Sukkur, with full back benefits, hence appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate, for the respondent. An application, dated 29-3-1987 for adjournment was rejected as was unnecessarily repeated by Mr. Syed Ahmad Farooqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants. I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the respondent was working as Assistant Storekeeper since 1-4-1971 in the Mechanical Engineering Upper Sind Mechanical Division, Sukkur and was transferred to the Tube well Operation Division SCARP, Sakrand in July 1982. It is again an admitted position that since July 1982 the respondent was regularly working in Mechanical Sub-Division Moro till he was sent back to his parent department, vide letter dated 17-2-1983 and that the appellant Mechanical Engineer, Upper Sind Mechanical Division, Sukkur, had refused to receive the respondent back on duty for the reasons known to him. From the admitted facts it is established that the respondent was sent on deputation, though it was neither under any authority nor it was necessary. It is also an admitted position that A.E.N. Pumping Sub-?Division, where the respondent was sent on alleged transfer/ deputation, was subordinate to the appellant Mechanical Engineer. It is established fact that the parent Department of the respondent is the establishment of appellant Mechanical Engineer, therefore, he was bound to take back on duty the respondent. I, therefore, hold it accordingly. It is again an admitted position that the respondent is senior to appellants Nos.2,3 and 4, namely Muhammad Tasleem, Ali Murad and Mohammad Khalil, therefore, his seniority be also determined as such. In view of the above legal and factual position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is nothing wrong with it.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits deposited in this Tribunal be paid to respondent, Imdad Ali s/o Khan Muhammad, after due verification. M.Y.H./1016/Lb.S?????? Appeal dismissed.