1. ' This petition has been submitted by Mr. Falak Shah Badge No, 9060 labourer, D. N. C. Joint Venture against the Personnel Manager D. N. C. Joint Venture, Tarbela Dam under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitioner has submitted that he has been serving with the respondent since 30 September, 1979 but his services were terminated on 5th May, 1980 although junior workers have been retained in service. He has submitted that his termination was illegal and mala fide and that Directions be issued to re-instate him.
2. ' The respondent in his paradise comments has raised preliminary objections relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with this case. It has been submitted that the Commission was competent to entertain and adjudicate upon the petitions for enforcement of any rights guaranteed or secured to the workmen under any law, settlement or award. Since the petitioner's services were terminated by way of termination simpliciter within the terms and conditions of his service contract no right was guaranteed or secured to him under any law, settlement or award. It has further been submitted that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 not being applicable in this case the petition should be dismissed on this score alone. According to him the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services could be terminated by the respondent in terms of paragraph 1 of the letter of appointment which the petitioner had accepted and as such he was debarred from agitating or contesting his termination before the National Industrial Relations Commission.
3. ' I have heard the arguments of both the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner was employed for a specific job likely to be completed in less than 9 months and during this period his services were liable to be terminated without notice. He argued that with the completion of the temporary work the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 5th May, 1980 and since the job on which he was employed was absolutely of a temporary nature there was no question of maintenance of seniority among these employees. His services have been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service as enumerated in the petitioner's letter of appointment.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the termination of the petitioner's services the respondent had engaged labourer and that even if his services had been terminated he was eligible to be appointed in the new vacancies in preference to other persons. The representative of the respondent agreed that there had been some appointments of labourers but their services were also terminated subsequently after completion of their work. The petitioner has given the Badge No, of 4 employees who were junior to him and who were still serving. Their Badge Nos. Are 9027, 9035. 9053 and 9057.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to rule 1 of the Rules framed by the National Industrial Relations Commission and published in the Gazette dated 23rd January, 1979. Rule 1 among other things also empowers the Commission to deal with cases of retrenchment, discharge, dismissal or termination from service. The preliminary objection of the respondent, is therefore, ruled out.
6. ' The petitioner was appointed as ordinary labourer. The respondent has not given any list of employees whose services were terminated or who were retrenched after completion of the work on which the petitioner was employed. It does not stand to reason that the petitioner was employed for a specific job and that he was the only workmen employed on that specific job as their cannot be any such job on which a single labourer could be employed. Secondly if the petitioner was employed on a job alongwith a number of workmen then the universally accepted principle of "last in first out" should have been observed by the respondent. The petitioner has himself submitted that there were junior workers who were still retained by the respondent. This fact has not been denied by the respondent as according to the learned counsel for the respondent there was no question of maintaining any seniority for the workers employed on a temporary job. The principle of "last in first out", I am afraid, was not observed or else his junior should not have been retained. This also belies fact that the work on which he was employed was completed. The petitioner was not a technical hand and he was employed as an ordinary labourer and in a huge construction company an ordinary laboureric can be absorbed in any section or department after completion of work in one section. I, therefore, hold that the termination of the petitioner was' illegal and I direct that he should be re-instated with full back benefits.