ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-This appeal front Abid Hussain, Heavy Vehicle Driver of the Food Department is at the stage of preliminary hearing, filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Director of Food, Punjab, 'Lahore and the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order dated 31-5-1980 be set aside and his fresh service be ordered to be treated as continuity in service and the arrears of service be also ordered to be paid.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Driver during 1971 in the Food Department. In the year 1980 his services were terminated along with other 15 Drivers and 10 Cleaners, by the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore as the size of Transport Cell was reduced from 70 trucks to 50 trucks. Hence the services of the appellant were terminated along with other surplus Drivers as for his appointment order, under clause 1 (it; of the terms and conditions of the service that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. However, the appellant was appointed afresh vide Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore order dated 17-6-1981 on purely temporary basis. As he has been appointed afresh by the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore who has terminated his services in 1980, the appellant has requested that the continuity of his service may be allowed and ordered to be treated as continuing in the service. He has made an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 against the order dated 17-6-1981 by which the appellant was appointed afresh. This appeal of the appellant has not yet been disposed of by the Respondent No.
2. The appellant has also prayed for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. Hence this appeal.
4 The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were heard, parawise comments offered by the respondents studied and the record in this case was also consulted. As size of the Transport Cell was reduced from 70 trucks to 50 trucks, thus, the Drivers became surplus and they had to be retrenched accordingly by the Department. Under the circumstances the appellant had to be retrenched and thus his services were terminated in the year 1980 as per terms and conditions of his appoint--ment.. When the position improved the appellant was again appointed afresh by the Department. Keeping the above facts and circumstances in view there is no force in the appeal of the appellant. There is no cause of grievance and no injustice has been done to the appellant.
5. Keeping in view the above analysis, the appeal is dismissed in limine as being without any merits.