' This petition has been submitted by Mr. Amir Rehman formerly Administration Officer, Personnel, DNC Joint Venture, Tarbela Dam against the Personnel Manager, DNC Joint Venture, Tarbela Dam under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitioner has submitted that he was hired as Administrative Assistant (Personnel) by the respondent-Company, on 17th October, 1978. He was promoted as Administrative Officer (Personnel) with effect from 1st July, 1979 and granted a merit raise of Rs, 500 p.m. Due to his good performance and behaviour.
The petitioner was again granted a merit raise of Rs, 500 from 1st August, 1979, keeping in view the importance of his job. He has submitted that his services have now been terminated on the plea of reduction in the work load due to re-organisation.
2. It has been submitted that the petitioner's job was of purely clerical nature and was still existing and that two junior officers to the petitioner were still working. The petitioner's services have been terminated but the respondent was still hiring new employees for the power house project. The petitioner was engaged on preparing of hiring documents, maintenance of employees record, preparation of termination papers of employees, typing, maintenance of seniority roll of the employees and registration of expatriates. It has been further submitted that the petitioner approached the Personnel Manager in this connection who informed him that the petitioner had been helping the affectees and creating trouble for the Company. He was not served with any show-cause notice and was not issued any charge-sheet or administered any warning. The petitioner has further submitted that during the absence of any one of the two juniors their duties were performed by the petitioner and similarly during the absence of the petitioner, his duties were performed by the two juniors, and that no official allocation of duties was made by the Personnel Manager who had given the easier jobs to his juniors because of their lesser experience and aptitude. He has therefore, prayed that the directions be issued to the respondent to re-instate him forthwith.
3. The respondent has raised certain preliminary objections on the petition. It has been submitted that the Commission was empowered under the Regulations dated 23rd December 1978, to entertain and adjudicate upon petitions for enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to the workmen under any law, settlement or award and that the petitioner's services were terminated by way of termination simpliciter and no right guaranteed or secured to him under any law settlement or award was involved.
4. The preliminary objection is overruled because the Regulations also provide that the grievance may relate to retrenchment, discharge,, dismissal or termination from service. The second objection relates to,' that definition of "workman" as given under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Employments) Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not a "workman" under the above-noted laws as he was appointed as Administrative Assistant and clause (41 of the letter of his appointment says that he will not be a member of any Trade Union as his appointment will be governed by B Officers Service Rules. It has further been submitted that according to the service rules his services can be terminated by giving him one month's notice and that his salary was Rs, 2,500 p.m. I overrule this objection because of a number of rulings given by the Commission in this connection to the effect that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act covers all employments in the establishment which is covered under this law and there cannot be any distinction between an Officer or an ordinary worker. The Commission has not so far issued any directions on the service rules framed by the respondent. The other two objections have been withdrawn by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments. S. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the company normally encourages all the employees by granting periodical raises and that the petitioner was given a raise in his pay because he had not been given any raise ever since his appointment with effect from 17th October, 1973. He was given another raise of Rs, 500 on his repeated verbal requests. The services of the petitioner were terminated due to reorganisation and in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in his letter of appointment. The learned counsel for the respondent denied that two juniors to the petitioner were still working as Mr. M. Y.
Shah was directly employed on 23rd May 1979 as Junior Personnel Officer on Rs, 1,800 when the petitioner was getting only Rs, 1,500 at that time. Similarly the other officer Mr. Naik Mohammad was employed as Personnel Officer with effect from 24th March, 1979 at Rs, 2,000 p.m. It has therefore, been submitted that there was obviously no comparison between the petitioner and other two officers who were directly employed in higher grades with different designations. According to the respondent all the three officers were drawing wages as under at the time of termination of services of the petitioner : {{TABLE}} Rs, Mr. M. Y. Shah Badge No, 5150 Liaison and Per- sonnel Officer. 3,200 H Mr. Amir Rehman Badge No, 5008 Administrative 2,700 Officer (Personnel).
Mr. Naik Mohammad Badge No, 5090 Personnel Officer, 2,200 {{TABLE}} ' It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner's duties were the same as enumerated by him in para. 9 of his petition but with the appointment of Mr. Naik Mohammad as Personnel Officer the petitioner was required to work under him and that Mr. M. Y.
Shah was entrusted with the following duties on his appointment as Liaison and Personnel Officer :
(1) Old Age Benefit forms-preparation, disposal, correspondence etc.
(2) Preparation of Badge Cards etc.
(3) Maintaining leave record etc. ' Mr. Bokhari was also made responsible for co-coordinating the Work of Personnel Section and to work as Liaison Officer between the Personnel Officer and the Personnel Manager.
6. The petitioner was appointed as Administrative Assistant (Personnel) and was subsequently promoted as Administrative Officer (Personnel) from 1st July, 1979. His services were terminated with effect from 5th July 1980, on account of reorganisation of the Company. I have heard arguments of both the parties. I find that the Company had at one time the following three employees in the Personnel Department :
(1) Mr. M.Y. Shah, Liaison and Personnel Officer.
(ii) Mr, Amir Rehman, Administrative Officer (Personnel),
(iii) Mr. Naik Mohammad, Personnel Officer.
' Of the two namely Mr. Bokhari and Naik Mohammad were hired subsequently and were given some of the duties which were previously performed by the petitioner. Even the designations of all the three are bit different but in any case all of them related to Personnel. It is not understood as to in what circumstances the petitioner's duties were entrusted to the other two officers. In case his work was not satisfactory it should have been mentioned and he should have been informed of this fact.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has not said anything about the performance of the petitioner. The other two oat cars were certainly appointed subsequently and no doubt they were given higher pay but they cannot at the same time be treated as senior to the petitioner as pay is not the criterion in reckoning seniority in service. It has been submitted by the respondent that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of re-organisation but the learned counsel for the respondent has failed to convince me as to what type of reorganisation was resorted to by the Company. It appears they have simply changed the designations of these three officers and have termed it as "reorganisation". No other employee of the Company was retrenched or removed on account of this reorganisation and I do not consider it justifiable to accept the point of reorganisation to warrant retrenchment of one employee.
8. I, therefore, do not find any justification in retrenchment of the petitioner as he was otherwise senior to the other two employees in service even if he was receiving lesser wages than Mr. M. Y.
Shah but he was getting more wages than Mr. Naik Mohammad. If the criterion of pay is also applied then even Mr. Amir Rehman should be deemed senior to Mr. Naik Mohammad. The termination of the petitioner Mr. Amir Rehman is therefore, not justified and I therefore, direct that he should be re-instated with effect from the date of his termination with full back benefits.