Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑148 of 1981/Pb., decided on 2nd March, 1983.

Industrial dispute‑--

--‑‑Retrenchment‑Termination of service to be made on principle of "last come first go''‑Road Transport Board Conductor's case Juniors transferred to other stations as a device to save them and to oust their senior‑Officers responsible for such illegal acts, held, burdening Establishment because illegally terminated employees have to be directed to be re‑instated with back benefits‑Road Transport Board advised to take notice of such acts‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25 & 37.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 27th February, 1983.

This is an appeal preferred by Punjab .Road Transport Board from the decision dated 14‑5‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The services of the respondent were terminated by way of retrench ment treating: him as junior most. About twenty‑five days before the termination of the services of the respondent the junior most conductors were transferred to Sahiwal vide order Exa. P‑l0 on account of becoming surplus. They were admittedly junior to the respondent. It has been argued that since at the time of termination the respondent was junior most, he had to be terminated. The respondent was not junior but was rendered junior on account of transferring his juniors to Sahiwal. The juniors were transferred and thus were saved from being retrenched and their seniors including the respondent were terminated. This cannot be said but the concerned authorities failed to understand the rule of retrenchment i.e. last come first go'.. It appears that intentionally device was made to victimize the respondent and other seniors and to save the juniors. They by their illegal acts are burdening the transport service, because the illegally terminated employees have to be directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits as they cannot be allowed to suffer for the illegal and victimiz ing acts of the employer. This is not known whether the Board is pot taking notice of such acts of the concerned officers. In the above discussed circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service.

3. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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