' This appeal arises from the decision dated 10th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and directed his reinstatement in service with connected back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as driver on 18th June, 1977 and worked upto 31st October, 1979 when his services were terminated. The reason for termination was that the work at Kotram Project, Dera Ghazi juniors namely had come to an end. The case of the respondent was that his uniors namely Muhammad Sharif, Khalid Mahmood, Ahmad Sher and Muhammad Salim were still working.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that after the project at Kotram came to an end due to the fact that the oil could not be traced there, the project came to an end, therefore, not only the respondent but other employees also were terminated. Regarding the other persons who are junior to the respondent, the learned counsel says that they belong to Attock and that since the appellant started work at Attock, therefore, those persons were re-employed. He says that since the respondent did not belong to Attock, but belong to D. G. Khan, therefore, he was not re- employed for the project at Attock. Standing Order 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is clear on the point. It states that where a number of workmen are to be retrenched and the employer proposes to take him into his employment in person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment, he shall give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen belonging to the category concerned by sending notice by registered post to their last known addresses to offer themselves for reemployment and they are to be given preference over other persons each having propriety according to the length of their service under the employer. Obviously, no notice was issued by registered post to the respondent for re-employment as this is not the case of the appellant. So even according to the position taken by the learned counsel in his arguments before me, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have sent registered notice to the respondent at the time of starting work at Attock. There is no force in the argument that since the work was started at Attock and the respondent belongs to D. G. Khan, therefore, he could not take benefit of Standing Order 14. There is nothing in the Standing Orders Ordinance that if the employer starts work somewhere else, he is not bound to send notice to the retrenched workmen. It is upto the workman concerned to decide on the receipt of a registered notice whether he should offer himself for re- employment at a different place or not. Not only that a project was taken up by the appellant at Attock but according to material on the record, in all there were seven projects in which the work was carrying on.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine. Back benefits will be calculated from the date on which the juniors of the respondent were re-employed ignoring the respondent.