DECISION ' The respondent, Sharif Khan, was employed by the appellant-Company as helper on daily wages of Rs, 6 vide order, dated 27th January 1977, on its S.S.E. Project at Pakistan Steel Mills at Pipri. On 16th December, 1979, the services of fifty riggers, including the respondent, were terminated by the appellant company by a written order on the ground that they had become surplus to their requirements at the S.S.E. Project. However, on the very next date i,e, 17th December, 1979, all these riggers were offered jobs of helpers/labourers at wages of Rs, 6 per day. The respondent, while showing his willingness to work as helper, claimed that he should be paid emoluments at the rate of Rs, 10 per day and that further his past service should be counted and taken into consideration.
As the appellant-Company was not willing to accept these terms, the respondent preferred a grievance petition before the learned Fourth Labour Court, which has set aside the orders of termination of services of the respondent and directed the appellant-Company to re-instate him with full back benefits. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant-Company has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heased Mr. Raffat Osmani, who appeared for the appellant-Company, and Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim, who represented the respondent workman. The contention of Mr. Raffat Osmani was that the respondent was exclusively appointed by the appellant Company at its S. S. E.
Project at Pipri and that project having been completed and there being no further requirement by the appellant-Company of either riggers or helpers at the said project, which was completed in August, 1980, the respondent could not be absorbed as rigger or even as a helper. He has further contended that appellant has not undertaken any fresh project and hence it is not possible to absorb the respondent either as helper or rigger in any other project. In support of his contention the learned counsel has produced a statement from the Manager (Personnel) of the appellant- Company.
3. The contention of Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim, on the other hand, is that the respondent was originally appointed as a helper and throughout continued to perform the same job and was never appointed or promoted as a rigger. He further submitted that since only jobs of riggers had become surplus on 16th December 1979 and admittedly the appellant-Company required helpers, as appears from their letter, dated 17th December, 1979, the termination of services of the respondent. Vide the appellant-Company's, letter, dated 16th December 1979 is both in.Salid as well as mala fide. The learned Labour Court has taken the view firstly, that the respondent throughout was employed as a helper and was never appointed or promoted as rigger and secondly, that there are other projects in which the appellant-Company is engaged and hence even if the appellant-Company's project at Pipri has come to an end the respondent could be employed in any other project of the appellant-Company.
4. The contention that the respondent all along was employed as a helper and was never employed as a rigger overlooks the fact that in the very first paragraph of his grievance petition the respondent has stated as follows {{URDU TEXT}}
5. The grievance petition is not the only document in which the respondent has taken the categorical stand that he was employed as a rigger. In his grievance notice to the appellant- Company dated, 12th June, 1980, the respondent has described himself as rigger and has given his Card No, as 4397. In view of the stand taken by the respondent both in his grievance notice as well as in his grievance petition, that he was employed as rigger by the appellant-Company at the relevant time, his subsequent summersault that all along he was employed as helper cannot be taken seriously and in fact his subsequent plea appears to be based on false statement. The respondent was not the only rigger whose service were terminated. As already pointed out, by the order, dated 16th December, 1979, the services of all the riggers in the appellant-Company's project at Pipri, numbering fifty, were terminated. This shows that the services of riggers were no longer required by the appellant-Company at the said project. It has not been shown that the appellant- Company required or requires the services of riggers at any other project. As such the respondent is not entitled to be appointed as rigger by the appellant company not can a Labour Court, in the circumstances, direct the appellant-Company to do so. As a matter of fact the respondent himself has not demanded that he be appointed as a rigger. His claim is that he may be appointed as a helper but on the wages of Rs, 10 per day. As already pointed out, the appellant-Company had offered jobs of helpers to the retrenched riggers but they had offered wages of Rs, 6 per day which wages were not acceptable to the respondent. The original letter of appointment of the respondents helper as shows that he was engaged on wages of Rs, 6 per day. This indicates that the appellant Company was paying wages of Rs, 6 per day to helpers as against wages of Rs, 10 per day to riggers. The respondent could not claim higher wages payable to rigger for doing the work of a helper, merely because he was previously performing the duties of rigger. As such, the appellant-Company was fully justified in refusing to give in to the demand of the respondent that he should be paid wages of Rs, 10 per day for doing the work of helper. In any case the present position, as stated at t the bar by Mr. Raffat Usmani, appears to be that the appellant's project at Pipri had come to an end in August, 1980 and there was no need by the appellant-Company for employing helpers or riggers at the said project. It would also appear that the appellant-Company has taken no other project in hand where the respondent could be employed.
6. I have also already shown that the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the respondent was all along employed as helper is misconceived.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal. In spite of the fact the respondent both in his grievance petition and his grievance notice has categorically stated that he was employed by the appellant- Company as rigger in his evidence before the learned Labour Court he has denied that he was working as a rigger when his services were terminated. Let notice issue to the respondent to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under section 193, P.P.C. For giving false evidence in a judicial proceedings. The respondent is present in Court. He should be required to furnish a bond in a sum of Rs, 1,000 (Rupee One thousand only) to appear before this Tribunal on 14th March, 1981.