1981 PLP 604 (PLC)

‑‑ Retrenchment made due to over‑staffing challenged as wrongful‑Neither any junior proved to have been retained nor sub sequent recruitment established‑Petition for re‑instatement, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &

37. Wahid Bux for Appellant. Date of hearing : 23rd February, 1981. By an order, dated 18th June, 1980, the services of the appellant, who was employed as a Bus Conductor in the S.R.T.C., the respondent herein, were terminated on account of retrenchment, he being one of the junior employees. It appears that earlier the services of the appellant were terminated on the charge of misconduct but on his challenging the said order of termination of services, he was ordered to be re‑instated in service by the learned Labour Court, by its order, dated 14th May, 1980. The appellant also challenged the subsequent order of his termination, dated 18th June, 1980, on the main ground that persons junior to him were still continued in service and that the plea of re‑organization was mala fide and not justified. The learned Labour Court, by its order, dated 12th January, 1981, repelled the contentions of the appellant and dismissed his grievance petition. The appellant has accordingly come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. It was not disputed by Mr. Sheikh Wahid Bux, the learned Representative for the appellant, that there has been repeated retrenchment in the S.R.T.C. In fact, . copies of the retrenchment orders, dated 28th January, 1980, 14th February, 1980, and 7th May, 1980, have been appended to the memo, of appeal. The contention of Mr. Wahid Bux, however, is that although, on the one hand, the S.R.T.C. were retrenching the services of their permanent workmen, they were engaging employees on daily wages and thus violating the provisions of labour laws. In support of his contention, the learned Representative has relied upon the order of 12th March 1980, by which as many as 17 persons had been employed on the basis of daily wages. There may be a number of reasons why it became necessary on the part of the S.R.T.C. to engage persons on daily wages basis for short periods. The extensive retrenchment effected by S.R.T.C. may itself have necessitated such a step. In any case, it appears that presently no daily wages workers are being employed in the S.R.T.C. Mr. Mian Mushtaq Mohammad, who was present during the hearing of the appeal and is the Legal Advisor of the respondent‑Corporation, made a categorical statement at the Bar that no daily workers were presently being employed in the S.R.T.C. The order of appointment of daily workers is, dated 12th March, 1980, while the services of the appellant were terminated on 18th June, 1980. There is no indication to show that after the termination of services of the appellant any daily workers were employed by the S.R.T.C. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to establish that any persons junior to him have been continued in service. The appellant was employed in S.R.T.C. in the year 1968, while according to the S.R.T.C., and their contention is borne out by the various orders of retrenchment produced in the case, that persons employed in S.R.T.C. after 1965 had to be retrenched because of the over staffing in the S.R.T.C.

3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.