1993 PLP 875 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 7th December 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 25‑10‑1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent workman having been employed as Helper on 16‑1‑1970 and thereafter was promoted as a Fitter in the year 1975. Further, the case of the respondent was that he was brought on regular establishment with effect from 1‑7‑1982, and they were, however, terminated on 8‑11‑193 on the ground of retrenchment and this order was challenged by him before the Labour Court resulting in the order of his reinstatement in service. The respondent claimed that as the appellants did riot comply with this order, therefore, he instituted a complaint against them where after the orders of he learned Labour Court were complied with. According to the respondent it had annoyed the appellants, who, again on 30‑7‑1985 had illegally terminated the services and had appointed another person namely, Muhammad Kabil, as Helper and subsequently promoted him as Fitter with effect from 15‑7‑1985 and had been retained in service. The respondent claimed that being aggrieved with the action of the appellants, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court at Sukkur.

3. The appellants had resisted the petition on the ground that the respondent was first appointed as Beldar on 1‑6‑1970, and was retrenched on 16‑2‑1971 and had received his gratuity and hereafter again he was employed as Beldar on 1‑2‑1972 and redesignated as Helper on 1‑7‑1973 and subsequently promoted as a Fitter on 1‑10‑1574. According to the appellants, the respondent was brought on regular establishment on 1‑7‑1982 and his services were terminated as he was junior in cadre, but, he was reinstated in service in pursuance of the order of the learned Labour Court and that Muhammad Kabil was senior to him, therefore, his termination of services was correct, hence, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑n‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. No affidavits were filed by Muhammad Qabil and Muhammad Yaqboob. Thereafter, the learned Labour Curt has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Awan, he learned Advocate for the respondent and have also perused the record aid proceedings of the case. An application for adjournment was sent on behalf of the appellants, which is rejected. Nemo is present for the appellant. At be very outset, I would observe here that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and there is nothing wrong in it. The admitted position is that the respondent, Bland son of Illahi Bux was not junior‑most Fitter than Muhammad Qabil and Muhammad Yaqoob, who are admittedly still in the employment of the appellants. I, therefore, hold that the termination of the services of the respondent was quite wrong, illegal and mala fide. The appellants had miserably failed to prove that the respondent was a junior‑most and his termination of services was correct. In view of this position I would hold that the termination of the respondent was illegal and incorrect, hence, it is set aside.

4. For the reasons stated by me alone, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. The respondent, Biland son of Illahi Bux is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits‑ forthwith. A.E./1159/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.