1. ' The 'respondent Muhammad Iqbal S/o Nazar Hussain filed grievance petition U/S. 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 mentioning the facts that he was appointed as Clerk on 06.05.1981, however subsequently he was terminated from the service but later on reinstated vide order dated 01.07.1999 by the Court; that on 25.01.2003 the Appellant No. 2 Factory Admin. Manager called him in his office forcibly got signed resignation and later on he was not allowed to enter into the Factory; that later on 'respondent received termination letter on 31.01.2003 through registered post which was illegal without lawful justification, hence prayed that he was terminated without issuing show-cause notice and regular enquiry whatsoever, therefore he be reinstated in service.
2. The respondent sent grievance notice which was not replied by the appellant department and he filed the instant grievance petition.
3. 2.This petition was resisted by the appellant department by filing written reply raising five preliminary objections about maintainability of the grievance petition as termination letter was passed lawfully on the basis of his resignation. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of Muhammad Iqbal as PW-1 and got exhibited documents Ex. P.1 to Ex.P.5. On the other hand Abdul Qayyum Toor appeared as RW-1 and got exhibited documents Ex.R. 1 to Ex.R.4. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the grievance petition vide impugned order dated 25.11.2008.
4. Feeling aggrieved appellant department has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal.
5. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is against the law and fads of the case. Learned counsel referred last sentence of the cross-examination of the respondent's statement wherein he admitted "I am doing zamindara nowadays, after 25.01.2003"; that learned trial Court did not consider theses aspects of the case.
6. Prayed that this appeal be allowed.
7. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court about which reasoning is given in Para 12 of the impugned judgment, hence prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
8. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court minutely.
9. 6.The respondent Muhammad Iqbal through his grievance petition has agitated that he was serving in the appellant Textile Mills since 06.05.1981 and subsequently he was terminated and learned Member N.I.R.0 Lahore vide order dated 18.06.1999 Ex.P.5 present on record, order for his reinstatement in service in the light of statement made by the appellant's legal advisor, however, it was agreed that no back benefits were allowed to the respondent. The respondent was reinstated on 01.07.1999 in the light of above mentioned order, however with males fides instead of showing his reinstatement from the initial appointment on 06.05.1981 it was treated by the appellant-mills as a fresh appointment from the said date i.e. 01.07.1999; that while keeping in view of the above mentioned date of reinstatement as date of fresh appointment, the respondent was retrenched while preparing a seniority list Ex.R.1 showing him the junior most employee in the appellant/mills.
10. This aspect has been thoroughly discussed by the learned trial Court and rightly held it as illegal and set-aside the termination order dated 31.01.2003. All these aspects have been looked into and thoroughly discussed by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment. In Para 12 of the judgment, the learned trial Court observed: The impugned order of termination dated 25.01.2003. Ex.P.1 is found to be an example of colourful exercise of the jurisdiction at the hands of the respondents-establishment. A wrong interpretation has been attached to the order of the learned Member of N.I.R.0 Lahore dated 18.06.1999 where the learned Legal Advisor for the respondents clearly made an undertaking that the management was prepared to take the petitioner on service, but without back benefits. To take the petitioner back in service, means that the petitioner's previous termination was declared illegal and consequently, the petitioner was directed to join the duty w.e.f. 1.7.1999, though, without back benefits.
11. 7.As far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of grant of back benefits to the respondent is concerned. The respondent in his grievance petition prayed for setting-aside of the termination/retrenchment order along-with he claimed the back benefits and while appearing as PW-1 he categorically stated that he remained jobless since his termination.
12. 8.Learned counsel for the appellant while being cross-examined where the respondent stated that; "I am doing zamindara nowadays, after 25.01.2003".
13. There is no proof produced by the appellant/mills if the respondent was employee somewhere or doing any gainful business Zamindara in this part of country is a normal day to day activity of people living in countryside and even otherwise it cannot be expected from an employee who being terminated to sit idle in his home, therefore this reply cannot be used in favour of the appellant-mills as proof to show that the respondent was busy in any business or service activity whatsoever. In these circumstances, this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force, hence this appeal merits dismissal, which is hereby dismissed.