Find a Lawyer

Case No. 18 (110) of 1976, decided on 30th August 1976.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)-

--- S. 1(4) & S. O. 13 - School run by Tarbela Joint Venture- Not beyond scope of Ordinance-School Teacher ousted retaining her junior-Argument that junior was more highly qualified-Petitioner also duly qualified for particular job-Argument, in circumstances, rejected-Retrenchment, held, illegal and petitioner directed to be re-instated with full back benefits.

Mrs. S. M. Gill was serving as at teachress in the Primary Section of Urdu Medium School run by the Tarbela Joint Venture, at Tarbela. She had joined the institution on 25-4-69. On 22-5-76 her services were terminated on account of redundancy.

2. Tarbela Joint Venture is an essential services and the Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission has been appointed as an authority under section 3 of the said Act. Mrs. Gill has approached the authority under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 for her re-instatement with full back benefits, on the ground that persons junior to her had been retained when she was retrenched.

3. The crux of the respondent's reply is that the school was not an industrial concern, that standing orders did not apply to it and that at any rate in the school, in the interest of the students the petitioner could not be retained as against highly qualified teachers. The parties were heard at length. The fact which appeared from the affidavit filed by the Principal of the school on behalf of the respondent shows that there were two Sections of Class I in the Urdu Medium Primary School out of which one was taught by Mrs. Gill and the other by Rehana Saddozai. When the latter was transferred to English Medium branch of the school Mrs. Qaisar Khalid was recruited on 3-9-75 to replace her and that Mrs. Qaisar Khalid was retained when the petitioner was retrenched. The view of the above, it is abundantly clear that a teacher junior to the petitioner was retained when she was retrenched. This is clearly against Standing Order 13.

The argument that Mrs. Qaisar Khalid was highly qualified being B, A., C. T., B. Ed. has no force because the petitioner is also qualified for teaching the class in question which she was teaching without any trouble for the last six years. The reasons advanced for retaining Mrs. Qaisar Khalid ate not recognised by Standing Order 13 and the retrenchment of the: petitioner was, therefore, illegal. No law or authority could be cited by the respondent to show that Standing Order did not apply to the petitioner', case. She was admittedly a worker employed by T. J. V. and the Standing Order, therefore, did apply to her case. I, therefore, order that the order of retrenchment of the petitioner was illegal and that she be re-instated with all full back benefits.

Since this order will involve an increase in wages to be paid by the respondent, as it shall have to pay the petitioner for the period for which n had already paid to the other teacher retained. Under the circumstances previous sanction in writing of the Government is essential. This order, therefore, should be sent to the concerned Division of the Central Government through the Labour Division for sanction where after it should be published in the official Gazette.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.