DECISION These two appeals by the Mechanized Construction of Pakistan, appellants herein, are directed against a common decision given by the learned VIIth Labour Court on 8th September, 1982, allowing the grievance petitions of the two respondents workmen, challenging the termination of their services, and directing the appellants to reinstate them in services with back benefits for the period from their return to Pakistan from Iraq till the filing of their grievance petitions on 24th March, 1982. As common issues are involved in both the appeals they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2. The facts of this case, shortly stated, are that the two respondents were in the services of the M.
C. P. As drivers. Respondent Rab Nawaz is stated to have been in the services of the M. C. P. With effect from 1st January, 1975 while respondent Illahi Bux is said to have been in the employment from 7th August, 1977. It is an admitted position that in July, 1980, both of them were selected for the appellant's Dalmaj Project in Iraq and they actually left for Iraq for working in the said project in pursuance of the appellants' main office letter, dated 23rd July, 1980, after executing the usual agreement for serving abroad. The employment of both the respondents in the Dalmaj Project in Iraq came to an end on 29th July, 1981, whereupon they were sent back to Pakistan in accordance with the conditions of their agreement with the appellants and they reported for duty at the Sukkur office of the appellants on 3rd September, 1981. They were not taken on duty but it appears that they were asked to wait. The Manager of the appellants at Sukkur first obtained advice from the Assistant Personnel Officer, Sukkur who was of the view that the respondents being permanent employees were entitled to re-instatement in service and their services could only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders and the principle of "first come last to go".
The Manager of the appellants at Sukkur, however, was not satisfied with this advice of the Assistant Personnel Officer and hence wrote to the Head Office at Lahore asserting that the services of the two respondents had been terminated at the time that they were sent to the Dalmaj Project in Iraq in July, 1980. On the basis of this information furnished by the Manager of the appellants at Sukkur the Head office of the appellants at Lahore sent a telegram on 16th December, 1981 to the president of the employees' federation in the appellants establishment that the two respondents could not be taken back on duty. Accordingly both the respondents, after serving due grievance notices on 14th January, 1982 on the appellants, preferred grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court on 24th March, 1982
3. The appellants resisted the grievance petitions of the two respon--dents mainly on the ground that their services had been terminated on 16th December, 1981 when they were ordered to proceed to the Dalmaj Project in Iraq. It was also urged by the appellants that the grievance petitions were time-barred. The learned Labour Court repelled the contentions of the appellants and allowed the grievance petitions of the respondents as already indicated.
4. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court mainly on the ground that the services of the two respondents were terminated by the Office Order, dated 20th July, 1980, this being the Office Order by which they were directed to proceed to Iraq for being employed on the Dalmaj Project of the appellants. The assertion made in the said Office Order that the services of the two respondents were terminated, however, is open to two serious objections. In the first place, it has not been established that this Office Order was served upon the respondents. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan sought to argue that at least respondent Illahi Bux has admitted in his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court that his signature was obtained on the termination order. However, even Illahi Bux in his immediately preceding answer had stated in the Labour Court that his signature was not obtained on the termination order. Furthermore, the appellants have not produced the termination order in respect of Illahi Bux bearing his signature. If any such order bearing the signature of Illahi Bux was in existence they could not have failed to produce the same.
The respondent Illahi Bux is a semi-literate driver and apparently can only sign in Sindhi. It appears that he was confused when answering questions in cross-examination before the learned Labour Court and was evidently referring to the contract documents when he was sent to Iraq to work on the Dalmaj Project. The second objection to the assertion made in the Order, dated 20th July, 1980, purporting to terminate the services of the two respondents, is that this addition in the Order is totally unwarranted and unauthorised. The letter from the Head Office of the appellants at Lahore, dated 23rd July, 1980. By which the two respondents were selected for being sent to Iraq to work on the Dalmaj Project, does not indicate that the services of the two respondents were to be terminated. On the other hand the letter very clearly states that they were being sent to Iraq "ion transfer". This clearly negates the claim of the appellants that on their being sent to Iraq their services in Pakistan were terminated. It appears that the Manager of the appellants, Abdul Aleem Mian, in passing the order, dated 20th July, 1980, terminating the services of the two respon--dents had relied upon the policy in the Office Order from the main office of the appellants at Lahore, dated 7th August, 1980, to the effect that it had been decided that the services of the contract employees who are selected for Iraq shall be terminated in Pakistan before their departure to Iraq- - Even in interpreting this latter, Abdul Aleem Mian, the. Deputy Manager of the appellants at Sukkur had fallen in serious error, whether inadvertently or by design, As already indicated, respondent Rab Nawaz had been in M. C. P. Since 1st January, 1975 while Illahi Bux was in continuous service of the M. C. P. With effect from 7th August, 1;977. It is clear from the letter, dated 22nd July, 1981, of the Assistant Personnel Officer of the appellants at Sukkur that both the respondents were permanent employees and not contract employees to whom the order, dated 7th August, 1981 was applicable.
I am, therefore, of opinion that neither the order, dated 20th July, 1980, purporting to terminate the services of the two respondents was served upon the two respondents nor was the termination of services referred to in this order authorised and in fact it was in direct violation of the orders of the Head Office of the appellants, by which the two respondents were sent to Iraq on 1 transfer.
5. It was next sought to be argued by Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan that the grievance notices served by the two respondents are time-barred. He sought to base this contention on the ground that the two respondents had admittedly submitted their arrival report in Pakistan on 3rd September, 1981 but it was not till i4th January, 1982 that they served the requisite grievance notice on the appellants. The short answer to this contention is that the appellants' Manager at Sukkur was seeking advice and instructions whether the two respondents could be taken hack on duty. I have already referred to the advice of the Assistant Personnel Officer, dated 22 September, 1981, advising the Deputy Manager that as the two respondents were permanent employees they were to be taken back on duty. I have also referred to the fact that the Deputy Manager at Sukkur submitted a report, dated 14th October, 1981, to the Head Office, requesting for instructions as to what was to be done in the matter. It appears that the cases of the two respondents were under examination both at Sukkur as well as at Lahore and it was only upon the receipt of the telegram by the employees' Federation of the appellants on 16th December, 1981, that the respondents came to know that they were not being takers back in service. Their grievance thus, matured on the receipt of the telegram refusing to take the two respondents in service. Within one month of this telegram, on 14th January, 1982, the respondents served the requisite grievance notices on the appellants while the grievance petitions were filed by them on 24th March, 1982. As such, the grievance notices as well as grievance petitions were well within time.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that 1 find no merit in these two appeals and would dismiss them.