Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑394 of 1985, decided on 19th January, 1986.

---Termination of service due to abolition of post‑‑No suggestion of someone else appointed‑‑Employment of persons in other categories was not relevant‑‑Termination order, in circumstances, held, justified.

Appellant in person.

S.M.R. Anwar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12th January, 1986.

The decision, dated 11‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a water‑carrier. His post was abolished. He has said in his arguments that he should have been deputed to work on the pipelines. There is no evidence that equal number of persons are needed to act as water‑carriers and to work on pipelines. There is also no evidence that the appellant is capable of maintaining the pipelines. He admitted in cross‑examination that Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Din were water‑carriers with him and they were senior to him. He, no doubt, said that after the termination of service many employees were employed by the respondent but since no record of such appointments was caused to be brought on the file, nor the names of the alleged newly employed persons were disclosed, his deposition does not appear to be correct. This is note worthy that he does not say that after the termination of his services, any new water‑carrier was appointed If some persons were employed in other extegories, it would not help the appellant. The order of termination of the services of the appellant is, therefore, proper and there is no justification to interfere with it. The grievance petition thus was rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and dismissed.

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.