1993 PLP 870 (PLC(CS))

Shabbir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th December 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 2‑8‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent Jan Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, Jan Muhammad was a permanent employee of the appellants, and his services were terminated with effect from 31‑7‑1985, on the ground of retrenchment. He claimed that he was appointed as Machinist on 21‑3‑1968 and was redesignated as Turner on 22‑5‑1969 and was promoted as Charge-man in the year 1974 and was regularised on 1‑7‑1982, vide letter, dated 11‑1‑1983. The case ‑ of the respondent was further that his services were retrenched with effect from 3‑11‑1983 which was subsequently set aside by the learned Labour Court on 24‑10‑1984, but, again his services were mala fidely terminated with effect from 30‑7‑1987, again on the ground of retrenchment and that juniors had been retained in violation of the provisions of Standing Order

13. Thus, he claimed to have submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The appellants resisted the petition on the ground that the appointment of the respondent was on contingent basis and that the provisions of Labour Law were not applicable to his case. It was further denied that any junior turner had been retained by them and that the grievance petition of the respondent was not legally maintainable for non‑joinder of the necessary party i.e. the Secretary, Agriculture Department. It was also denied by the appellants, that the respondent Jan Muhammad was senior to the respondents Nos.2 to 7 herein. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent, Jan Muhammad was not legally entitled to maintain his grievance petition before, the learned Labour Court as he was rightly retrenched, hence his petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, the learned Advocate for the appellants Department and Mr. Shabbir Awan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent Jan Muhammad and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that at the time of terminating the service of the respondent, Jan Muhammad on the ground of retrenchment, his seniority in the cadre of Turner was not considered by the appellant‑Department. It is again an admitted position that he was regularised in the establishment with effect from 1‑7‑1982, vide order, dated 11‑11‑1983. The impugned order is well‑reasoned and needs not to be interfered with. The respondent Jan Muhammad should have been retained in the employment of the appellants Department as Turner being senior than Muhammad Yaqoob. This Muhammad Yaqoob did not care to file his affidavit‑in‑evidence before the learned Labour Court hence he had no defence. It is fully established that at the time of terminating the services of the respondent, Jan Muhammad the appellants department have clearly violated the provisions of Standing Order

13. The appellants department have miserably failed to substantiate their case. I therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has correctly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, namely, Jan Muhammad.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The respondent Jan Muhammad is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. A.E./1156/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.