1. ' This petition has been submitted by Muhammad Manzur Mechanic and 7 other Mechanics of D. M.
2. C. Tarbela Dam under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, against the Agent D. N. C. Joint Venture Tarbela Dam. It has been submitted that the petitioners had been working as mechanics for more than one year to the entire satisfaction of the respondent. The petitioners had submitted an application to the Management requesting for increase in their wages but the respondent did not accept their demand and on 28th April, 1980, the respondent issued service certificates saying that their resignations have been accepted with effect from 28th April, 1980, and that they should collect their dues from their paymaster. It has been submitted that in accordance with the agreement between the petitioners and the respondent either of the parties was required to give one month's notice in case of resignation or one month's pay in lieu thereof if no notice was given. The respondent, therefore, violated the conditions of the agreement and the termination of the petitioners was bad in law. It has further been submitted that the petitioners were willing to work and none of them had resigned from service because the job still exists for petitioners who may be allowed to continue in service with the respondent with full back benefits.
3. ' The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioners had submitted resignations and these were accepted by the Management and they were relieved by order dated 28th April, 1980. The learned representative for the petitioners however submitted that they had actually requested for increase in wages and had also mentioned in the application that if it was not possible for him to do so they should be relieved of their duties. He submitted that it was a request accompanied by a threat of leaving the company in case, the Management did not agree to increase their wages. He submitted that there was a break of 4/5 days in their service which may be condoned. He did not press for wages for these days but requested for continuity in service so that they could be benefited at the time of release in the shape of gratuity and other terminal benefits.
4. ' The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that these petitioners had resigned and were re-employed and they had accepted the terms of employment. He argued that the N. I. R. C. Could not provide any such relief to the, workers who were re-employed and the Authority also could not interpret the question of resignation of the workers. The learned representative for the petitioners however submitted that in a meeting held before the Assistant Commissioner, Sawabi. Resident Magistrate Tarbela and other officials which was attended by a representative of the respondent, it was agreed that the question as to whether these employees were to be treated as reinstated employees or new employees would be left to the decision of the N. I. R. C. And both the parties would abide by the decision of the N. I. R. C. The learned representative of the petitioners had submitted that he did not press for payment of wages for the period they had remained out of employment but simply requested for condonation of the break in service in order to secure the benefit of continuity in service and subsequent entitlement to terminal benefits.
5. ' I have gone through the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Management. In that letter which had been termed as 'resignation' the petitioners had stated that although their wages at the time of appointment were not attractive they had joined the Company in the hope that their wages would be increased in due course. They had therefore requested that their wages be revised as under:- H. D. M. Rs, 1,500 p. m. L. D. M. Rs, 1,260 p. m.
6. ' It Was further stated that otherwise they would request the Management to relieve them from the date convenient to them.
7. ' This letter was more in the shape of request for allowing them higher rates of wages than resignation in all seriousness. I feel the Managemen was not justified in treating it as their resignations and should have considered their demand for increase in their wages. These mechanics have beeni employed for more than one year in the company and had good record of service. Condonation in break in service is admissible even in Government Service and I therefore, direct that their break in service should be condoned towards continuity in service but they shall not be entitled to any wage for the period they had remained out of job.