Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 1. D853 of 1980/Pb., decided on 29th January, 1983.

---Ss. 25-A & 37 - Grievance petition against .termination of service-Contention that workman petitioner was appointed on a particular project and on its completion he became surplus - No evidence to support such contention-Juniors retained not proved to have been employed for some different work - Termination of service, in circumstances; held, illegal and uncalled for--Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition and awarding reinstate. meat with back benefits upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Naveed Ashiq for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 19th January, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 2nd December, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was general duty assistant. His services were terminated on the ground of retrenchment vide orders Exh. P. 1.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent was employed for Hydel Station Project and on the completion of the said project became surplus, so was rightly terminated. No order of appointment of the respondent was produced by the appellant. Only the order of termination is on the record. There is no other evidence, oral or documentary in support of the argument of the learned counsel. The learned lower Court has on the admissions of R. W. observed that the juniors of the respondent were retained in service, so the termination of the respondent was not legal. In this respect the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the juniors of the respondent were not employed for the project for which the respondent was employed, so they had been rightly retained in service. In this respect also there is no evidence on the record. Even in the order of termination copy of which is Exh. P. 1, it is not mentioned that the respondent was employed for the project which is alleged to have been completed. It is written in Exh. P. 1 that the job against which he was working had become redundant. It is not mentioned that he was employed for a particular job. No project is mentioned. This is also not mentioned on what ground the job had become redundant.

4. On appeal file certain documents have been placed which were not tendered in evidence in the lower Court. Since no application for additional evidence was given along with the appeal, nor even at any belated stage the respondent has no notice of them. They, therefore, cannot be used against him. Even these documents are not relevant to the point in issue and thus are not required by this Court for the just and proper decision of the dispute. They do not show if for particular project the respondent was employed. The name of the respondent figures at No. 12 of the list of employees working in the Directorate of Small Hydel Station Project. It is not mentioned that .the said employees were employed particularly for the said project. The mere fact that they were working in the project at the time the list was prepared is enough to show that they were employed for the said project. There is no indication when this list was prepared. So they are not germane to this case. There is a letter dated 27th June, 1979 from Executive Director addressed to Syed Mahmood, employer's representative, in answer to his letter to absorb the surplus staff of Project Directorate in the parent organization. The reply is in regret but there is no list of surplus staff which could show that it contained the name of the respondent also. So this document too is not relevant. When admittedly, as stated by R. W. 1, the juniors. of the respondent were retained and it has not been shown that they were employed for some different work, the termination of the respondent was illegal and uncalled for.

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

A. E 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.