' G. M. KOUREJO, J.-The facts giving rise to the present Constitutional Petition briefly stated are, that the petitioner Abid Hussain son of Waris Hussain was appointed as Site Helper by the respondent No, 2 on 29th May, 1975. Thereafter he was appointed as an Assistant Supervisor Electrical on N. R. L.
Expansion Project Korangi Site w,e,f, 1st March, 1977 on monthly basis. On completion of probationary period the petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Supervisor Electrical with retrospective effect vide order dated 14th June, 1977. By an order dated 31st October, 1977 the petitioner was released from service to take up new assignment at Zarqa Project Jordan. The respondent No, 2 got the petitioner's International Passport and National Identity Card prepared for obtaining viza for Jordan and also got the sanction of foreign exchange. The respondent No, 2, however, did not send him to Zarqa Project as well as did not post him on any job at any of its project in Pakistan. He has also not been paid his salary w,e,f, 1st November, 1977 upto date and did not reply to the letters of the petitioner. The petitioner after approaching various authorities filed an application No, 152 of 1978 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in Sind Labour Court No,
2. The Sind Labour Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 14th October, 1979. The petitioner filed an Appeal No, 79 of 1979 and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the same in limine vide order dated 15th November, 1979 resulting in the present petition.
2. The petitioner has mainly contended that his release from the Korangi Project vide order dated 31st October, 1977 Annexure (D) on the record tantamounts to his transfer in the services of the company, rather than his termination of services as- determined by the respondent No,
2. On the other hand it has been contended by the respondent No, 2 that the release of the petitioner from the Project Korangi of the National Construction Company tentamounts to termination of his , services from the Company and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to any further employment in the Company as well as payment of his salaries as claimed by him.
3. It has been contended by Mr. Syed Saeed Hassan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that release of the petitioner from N. R. D. Karangi Project by the respondent No, 2 vide order dated 31st October, 1977 for Zarqa Project Jordan would not amount to his termination of services by any stretch of imagination as he was released w,e,f, 31st October, 1977 whereas he was interviewed for release to Zarqa Project Jordan on 12th February, 1978 after a period of about nearly for months and was not found suitable for that project on the ground that he did not possess qualifications to be taken up in that project. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that he would have been interviewed for Zarqa Project earlier than his release and in case he was not found qualified for that Project there was no question of releasing him from the services of the Company as he was a permanent employee of the Company and his services could not have been terminated except in accordance with the service Rules and procedure and instructions for monthly basis employees in Grades VI to IX, the petitioner admittedly enjoying Senior Grade VII. He has further referred to us the order of the petitioner's appointment on monthly basis Annexure "B" on record which clearly says that his services will be governed by the rules of the Company as framed for the project as they now exist or may be subsequently framed or amended. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred us to rule 13 in Chapter III of the rules, which reads as under :- "13. Resignation and discharge.-For the termination of employment of a permanent employee, one month's notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof for either side shall be given. Rule 14. Retrenchment.- -If any employee is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of employees, he shall be retrenched on the basis of last come first out. Rule 1 of Chapter IV reads as under :-- "Transfer.-An employee of the Company may be posted anywhere in or outside Pakistan or transferred in the interest of the Company's Service from one place to another by the authority concerned. Such employee will be governed by the service conditions as applicable to the Department/Establishment where posted. Where an employee disobeys an order of transfer without any valid reason, he shall render himself liable for disciplinary action."
4. On the basis of the above-mentioned rules the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the release of the petitioner for Zarqa Project, Jordan would clearly amount to his transfer from the Project of the Company to Zarqa Project (Jordan) and would not amount to his termination of services which clearly require one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. He has further contended that the rules clearly provide transfer of the permanent employee from Project of the Company in Pakistan to any project outside Pakistan and since one month's notice as provided by the rules which govern the petitioner's service was not given and the rule of retrenchment last come first out having not been applied to the petitioner in case Korangi Project was complete, which was admittedly much after the release of the petitioner for Zarqa Project, Jordan, the release of the petitioner would not amount to his termination of services from the service of the company, respondent No,
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel very clearly are supported by the rules of the respondent No, 2 and there was no justification on the basis of the material on the record to treat the order of release of the petitioner for Zarqa Project (Jordan) as termination of service, when it clearly amounts to his transfer from that project and that in case he could not be sent to Zarqa Project, Jordan for any reason he would have been absorbed in the service of the company till he was removed in accordance with the rules, and procedure governing the service of such permanent employees of the Company. The contentions to the contrary raised on behalf of the respondent No, 2 by his learned counsel Mr. Hassan Zafar, therefore, have, no force. We would, therefore find that the release of the petitioner for Zarqa Project would amount to his transfer in the services of the Company and not the termination of his services. Mr. Abdul Sattar Sheikh, the learned Additional Advocate General has also very fairly conceded that the release of the petitioner from the service of the Company for Zarqa Project in the circumstances, cannot be taken as an order of his termination of services, in view of the material available on the record and the rules of service governing the service of the petitioner.
5. Considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the material available and the rules governing his service, we are, clearly of the view that the release of the petitioner for Zarqa Project would amount to his transfer from service of the respondent No, 2, rather than termination of his services. He therefore, continues to be in employment of the respondent No, 2's Company and would be entitled to be paid his full salary w,e,f, 1st November, 1977 the date of his release.
6. The result is, that we allow this petition with no order as to costs.