1. DECISION MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOFI (CHAIRMAN). The complainant" Abdul Qayum, the son of Waryam, has instituted complaint under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, against the respondent, i.e. the West Pakistan Industrial Develop--ment Corporation, through the Senior Mining Engineer Makerwal Collieries Limited, Makerwal Tehsil Isa Khel, District Mianwali. The complainant has asserted, that on the date 5th March 1952, he was appointed as a munshis by the Central Government. On the 26th February 1952 the complainant whose services, on his own showing, had been referred from the Central Govern--ment of Pakistan tin the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation as from the date lit March 1954, was entrusted by snit Corporation with the duties of a lower division clerk. On the 1 of March 1957, he was promoted as an upper division clerk. Later on, on tile date 1st July 1962, the complainant was promoted as an Assistant Store-Keeper and, according to his own version of the facts on the date 16th February 1967, he became as Assistant Stone-Keeper and was eventually promoted to the post of a Store-Keeper, with effect from the date 12th May 1967. The complainant has further submitted that on the date 29th July 1970, his services were terminated by the above-named respondent vide the copy of the order of termination attached herewith as Annexure 'A'. On the date 11th August 1970, the complainant addressed a notice in writing to the respondent under clause (a) of Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. A copy of that notice is attached herewith as Annexure 'B'. On the 3rd of September 1970, the respondent sent the complainant a reply to the latter's notice, a copy of which is attached herewith as Annexure 'C'. The complainant has challenged the validity of the respondent's order dated 29-7-1970 regarding the termination ofst the complainant's services, which order the complainant has branded as illegal', 'mala fide', null and void, without legal effect and against the principles of natural jusdce, on certain grounds which are summarized hereinafter.
2. On the complainant's showing he was the junior Vice-- President of the Makerwal and Gullakhel Collieries Employees' Union. In that capacity the complainant lodged some. complaints against Mr. Khalid Aziz, the Senior Mining Engineer; Makerwal, whom the complainant accused of participation in politics and alignment with local political leaders. Consequently an enquiry is said to have been instituted against the respondent Mr. Khalid Aziz, which is stated to have commenced on the date 20th of July 1970. According to the complainant's version that enquiry was conducted by the General Manager, (Mining) and the General Manager (Labour). In that enquiry the complainant Abdul Qayum is report--ed (by himself) to have deposed against Mr. Khalid Aziz, whom the complainant has now accused of vindictive treatment towards the complainant in the form of termination of the services of the complainant in the ostensible ground that the complainant's post had become surplus. It has been maintained by the complainant that the category of the staff to which the complainant belonged was not in fact surplus, hence there was no occasion or warrant for, declaring that complainant's job to be surplus. The complainant has. claimed to have been the senior most employee of the respondent inasmuch as he was employed during the year 1952 by tits Central Government and his services were subsequently transferred to the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation as from the date 1st March 1954. Furthermore the complainant has mentioned: that two other store-keepers were much junior to him; hence the termination of his services by the respondent was an obvious violation of the provisions of "Section 13, of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968". In conclusion it has been contended by the complainant Abdul Qayum that the impugned order of the respondent regarding the termination of the complainants employment is also defective inasmuch as he has boon awarded gratuity for 16 months only whereas he was entitled to a gratuity for 18 months. On all the these ground the complainant has prayed that the order of the respondent dated the 29th July 1970, regarding tine termination of the complaint's employment might be rescinded by this Court and the respondent be directed to re-instate the complainant in service from that date and also to pay the complainant the costs of these proceedings.
3. A detailed reply to the complaint under consideration was submitted by the respondent through Mr. Mahmood Zaman, Advocate. In that reply two preliminary objections were raised by the respondent. First, the complaint was described as not competent under Standing Order No. 18 of the 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi--nance, 1968.
4. Secondly the respondent contended that the complaint did not disclose any specific benefits accruing to the complainant under the said Ordinance of which the respondent had, allegedly, deprived the complainant, hence this complaint deserved dismissal. The respondent asserted that the impugned order dated 29th July 1970, regarding the termination of the employment of the complainant Abdul Qayum was legal and justified. It was denied by the respondent that the complainant was the junior vice-President of Makerwal Gullakhel Employees' Union. It was also declared in explicit terms by the respondent that the complainant was not an office-bearer of any Trade Union when his services were terminated by the respondent. The respondent unreservedly repudiated as false the assertion of the complainant that any enquiry was held against the -- respondent in which the complainant deposed against the respon--dent. In this context, it would be rewarding to reproduce `verbatim' the reasons accorded by the respondent in the reply for terminating the services of the complainant. Those reasons have been stated by the respondent in the following words:- "The services of the petitioner were actually terminated, as he was found to be surplus to the requirements of the Collieries as is evident from Annexure (R. W. 1). The petitioner being junior most in his category, his services were therefore justifiably terminated: He has however been allowed all the benefits available to him. The termination is a discharge simplicitor and is purely on grounds of economy and not as a punishment, as the production of coal has considerably been decreased. It may be stated here that the services of a large number of other employees have also been terminated for the same reason."
5. The respondent further stated that the complainant Abdul Qayum was the junior-most person in his own category of employees hence no violation of Standing Order No. 13 had been perpetrated try the respondent in this case. According to the respondent's reply the complainant had been paid the entire amount of the gratuity due to him in accordance with law and the relevant rules. On all these grounds the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint under consideration.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant Abdul Qayum himself in support of this complaint and have also heard the counter-arguments urged by the respondents counsel. All the documents provided to this Court by bout parties have been examined minutely. It is essential to emphasize the fact that the complainant has not brought forward any documentary evidence in this Labour Court to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was an officer of a registered Trade Union at the time when his employment was terminated by the respondent. The onus of providing such evidence to the Court manifestly rested upon the complainant alone. Furthermore there is not an iota of documentary evidence to support the view that the employment of the complainant was terminated by the respondent on account of any Trade Union activities of the complainant. In this context the provisions of the proviso appended to clause (b) of Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and-Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, may appropria--tely be quoted word for word. They are as follows :-- "Provided that rat complaint shall lie against an order, of termination of employment of a workman unless the workman concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the workman concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade "Union or not, has been deprived of the benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance."
7. It remains to consider whether or not this is a case in which the respondent is found to have deprived the complainant of any specific benefit or benefits accruing to the complainant under the 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968'. The only reference to this subject that is discernible in the complaint under consideration is the one set forth on page 3 of the complaint in the following words:- "That the petitioner is the senior most employee. He was employed in 1952 in the Central Government and his services were transferred to W.P.I.D.C. on 1-3-54, whereas the other two store- keepers are much junior to petitioner. Hence the termination of services of the petitioner are in clear violation of section 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968."
8. At this stage it would- be appropriate to point out that no arguments have been advanced by the complainant to bear out his contention that his service under the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation with effect from the date 1st March 1954, should be regarded as continuous with his previous service, under the Central Government, to which the Ordinance in question is not applicable. It was expressly stated in the respon--dent's reply to the petitioner's notice under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (vide Annexure `C' which was attached by the complainant to his complaint under consideration) that the complainant was the junior most store-keeper in the W.P.I.D.C. Collieries in Makerwal and since the production of coal was appreciably decreasing day by day therefore the respondent had felt compelled to declare the post of Abdul Qayum, store- keeper, as a surplus one, and had terminated his services on that ground with effect from the date 2nd August 1970. It has also been asserted in the plainest possible terms in the respon--dent's reply that the complainant was the junior-most employee in his own category. The complainant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to this Court that might reasonably be held to invalidate or contradict the point of view of the respondent. As a matter of fact it is apparent that the complainant's claim to have 'been the senior-most store-keeper in the service of the res-- pondent on the date on which that service was terminated is based exclusively upon his own groundless view that his service under the W.P.I.D.C. as from the date 1st March 1954 is a continuation of his previous service of about two years under the Central Govern--ment. It is relevant to this context to declare that there is not the slightest legal or factual justification for accepting this view of the complainant himself. The West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation cannot legally or factually be regarded as a wing or off shoot of the Central Government of Pakistan. Be that it may, the complainant has found himself at a loss to convince this Court that the respondent has deprived hires of any particular benefit accruing to the complainant under the West Pakistan and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi-- nance, 1968'. As pointed out above, since the complainant was not an officer of a registered Trade Union on the date when his services were terminated by the respondent on ground of economy therefore a complaint lies against the order of terminations' another complainant employment that was passed by the respondent date. 29-7-1970, in view of the above---cited provisions of the proviso to clause (b) of Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
9. For the reasons set-forth above in detail this complaint of Abdul Qayum (ex-store-keeper) is dismissed.
10. No appeal lies against this decision of the Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore, to any Court or other authority under any provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.