DECISION These are four appeals against the common order allowing the applications made by the respondents under section 25-A of I. R. O. And ordering re-instatement with back benefits.
2. The respondents were in the employment of the appellant. Their services had been terminated.
Consequently they served grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. The applications were resisted and it was pleaded that on account of retrenchment the services of the respondents were terminated as they were the junior most.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the District Manager who had terminated the services of the respondents was not competent to remove them from service as the respondents were in Class III and this power was vested in the Member Administration or the Chairman of S. R. T.
C. By virtue of the Powers of Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1976 it was also on the basis of the admission made by the appellant that some junior persons to respondents were subsequently taken back and, therefore, the respondents had prior claim over the juniors. On the basis of these findings be passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this the present appeals have been filed.
5. From what has been stated above it is plain enough that two points are involved in the present appeals. First point relates to the competency of the District Manager to terminate the services of the respondents. In this connection the learned Presiding Officer had placed reliance upon Rules of 1976. In order to meet this the learned represen--tative for the appellant placed before me the order of the Chairman dated 11th May, 1977 whereby he authorised the District Manager to effect the retrenchment and the services of the junior most staff should be terminated. Thus although the District Manager originally was not competent to terminate the services of the respondents but by the aforesaid order he was delegated the power by the Chairman and, therefore, he was competent to exercise those powers and no exception can be taken to the competency of the District Manager.
6. With regard to the reinstatement of the junior persons no such plea was taken either in the grievance notice or applications made under section 25-A, I. R. O. And consequently a fresh case could not be fished out in evidence. The learned Presiding Officer erred in relying upon any such admission made in the cross-examination. He clearly ignored the principle that the decision had to be confined to the pleadings and none of the parties can be permitted to set up a new case in evidence and take the other side by surprise, thereby denying the opportunity to that party to rebut the case which was sought to be set up. Moreover, the Presiding officer also erred in stating that any such admission was made. What was stated by the witness to the question was that "some juniors may have been re-instated." This cannot be treated to be an unqualified admission regarding reinstatement of the junior persons. In my view the witnesses had expressed want of knowledge rather than it was an admission of a fact. Not only this but these persons were reinstated on the basis of the decision of the Labour Court.
7. Lastly it was contended before me that reasons were not given in the order whereby services were terminated. Of course in the letter no reason was assigned but reason was given in the general order that services had been terminated on account of retrenchment. The original order was on the file which was shown to me at the time of the arguments and it was also inspected by the learned Advocate for the respondents. Even otherwise in the order it was stated that the services were no longer required.
8. In the circumstances I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and dismiss the applications made under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.