1991 PLP 292 (PLC)

S. 25-A

Retrenchment--Labour Court dismissed grievance petition of worker challenging his retrenchment

Appellant had been retrenched from service twice before but was taken back each time and on his retrenchment for third time he was not taken back although he claimed that his juniors were allegedly taken back in service

Appellant had not impleaded his juniors who had been taken back by management and whose interest was at stake in case appellant succeeded in his appeal

No decision could be given as to whether they were senior or junior to appellant or whether they had been reinstated or promoted after retrenchment of appellant--Held, it was unfair and unjust if appeal of appellant was dismissed on this technical ground of non-impleading persons likely to be affected by decision of appeal

Case was remanded to Labour Court for retrial and appellant was directed to implead said other persons i.e. juniors as parties to proceedings-- Labour Court would decide case afresh on merits unprejudiced by its previous order of dismissal of appellant's grievance petition and would not preclude employer from raising any legal or factual objection. Shaikh Fazaldin for Appellant. S. Abdur Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 10-6-1987, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed,

2. The facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was removed from service on previous two occasions but he was ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. Third time, by order dated 30-7-1985, the appellant was retrenched from service. He served grievance notice and thereafter filed grievance petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Shaikh Fazaldin, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Abdur Rahman, the learned Counsel for the respondents, and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. The main grievance of the appellant's Counsel is that after his retrenchment one Muhammad Yaqoob who, was junior to him, has been reinstated and one Muhammad Qabil has been promoted as Fitter from the post of Helper. In support he has relied on decision of the Tribunal in Appeal No. SUK-49 of 1987, wherein petition of one Biland who also was retrenched by the same order was reinstated on the ground that Yaqoob was junior to him and Muhammad Qabil was promoted as Fitter. However, I find that Mohammad Qabil as well as Muhammad Yaqoob were parties to that proceeding. In the instant case they have not been made parties and, therefore, no decision can be given as to whether they were junior or senior to the appellant or whether the have been reinstated or promoted after the retrenching of appellant. It will b unjust and unfair specially in view of the decision of appeal of Biland if the appear of the appellant is dismissed on technical ground that he had not mad those two persons as parties. As such, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case for retrial to the learned Labour Court and direct the appellant to join said Muhammad Qabil and Muhammad Yaqoob as parties to the proceeding. The Labour Court to decide the case afresh on merits unprejudiced by its previous order. It will not preclude the respondents from raising any legal or factual objection. M.Y.H./1675/Lb.S Case remanded.