' The eight appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated. 19th May, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents for their reinstatement in service were accepted and they were directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondents have filed cross-objections in the appeals brought against them, respectively. As common questions of fact and law arise in all the appeals and cross-objections, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondents are conductors in the Government Transport Service under the P. R. T. B. And their services were terminated by the District Manager on the ground of retrenchment as the posts had been abolished by the Managing Director. Three points were raised before the learned lower Court by the respondents. The learned lower court replied two points in favour of the respondents but held that the order of abolition of posts of Conductors by the Managing Director was legal and with jurisdiction. The respondents have in their cross-objections challenged this finding of the learned lower Court and have also claimed back benefits. I endorse the finding of the learned lower Court that the order of abolition of the posts of conductors is legal. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Board did not delegate the powers to any authority to abolish the posts. He has made reference to rule 7 (1), (2) and (5) Sub-rule (1) deals with the appointment of principal officers and sub-rule (5) says that this power shall vest in the Board. Sub-rule (b) deals with the appointment of other officers and servants and this power, according to sub-rule (5), vests with such officers of the Board who have been empowered by the Board in this respect. The powers of the Board are enumerated in rule 12 of Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972. Sub-rule
(b) is an all embracing rule. It says :- "To do all other acts which in the opinion of the Board are necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on and furtherance of the functions of the Board,"
' The general duties of the Board are given in rule 10. It says :- "(1) It shall be the duty of the Board to so exercise its powers as to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated system of Road Transport Service in the province and in any extended area."
(2) In discharge of its functions, the Board shall act on commercial basis."
' It is clear from rules 10 and 12 that the Board has to render transport service economically on commercial basis, so all powers to fix the number of posts and to decide how many buses should be on the roads vests in the Board. If the system becomes uneconomical, it can reduce the number of certain category of posts. Rule 14 authorises the Board to delegate its powers to Managing Director, members of the Board or any other officer of the Board. In 1974 the Board delegated its powers to various officers of the Board. Effect was given to the said delegation of powers on from 1st January, 1974. Item No, 20 is relevant to the present case. It reads as under :- "To sanction creation of posts for their own office and offices subordinate to them and to prescribe scale of pay in regard to them,"
So far as the Managing Director is concerned, full powers were given to him in respect of all posts, except the posts of principal officers. The posts of conductors, not being posts of principal officers, the Managing Director has the power to create such posts. Now the question is if the power to create posts includes the powers to abolish some posts ? Act of creation of posts is of greater importance and paramount responsibility, because it burdens the budget of the transport service.
If unncessarily excessive number of posts are created, naturally it would cause loss or at least reduce the profit. It is clear from rule 10 that the Board has to run transport service on economical and commercial basis. Obviously creation of certain; posts in excess would not be economical from business and commercial point of view. Act of abolition of posts is not of such a paramount importance as the creation of posts. This is true that by the abolition of posts, the holders of posts are rendered surplus and have to be terminated. If a scheme has been introduced to procure employment to the public, the paramount question will be of Unemployment, but as observed above, the transport service was started not for the purpose of providing employment to the public but to render transport facility to the public on economical and commercial basis do not mean to say that the question of unemployment will be totally ignored. The point is that such a question cannot override the genuine necessity of abolition of posts. Of course if the act of abolition of posts is without any genuine necessity the workers have a secured right to challenge it in law courts. So powers of creation of posts being of paramount importance includes the power of abolition of posts, which, as discussed above, is of lesser importance. It cannot be said that the Board while delegating power of creation of posts was unaware of the eventuality of reduction of number of certain posts, but in spite of it no preventive clause was inserted in item No, 20 of delegation of powers, providing that if any question of reduction of posts arises, that shall be referred to the Board. I, therefore, hold that the power to create posts necessarily includes the power to abolish posts.
3. It has been said that number of higher posts have been increased without any necessity and if the transport service was running at loss or fleet position was weak, the higher posts should have been abolished. Firstly, there is no documentary evidence that some higher posts have been increased unnecessarily and secondly even if it is so, if the fleet position is weak, the reduction of number of higher posts would not prevent the conductors getting surplus. Due to the fleet position the conductors have become surplus. If at all certain posts of higher cadre or category are unnecessary, the Board may be appraised of this fact, but so far as the present case is concerned, this point is not very much germane.
4. Learned lower Court has wrongly held that the intention of Standing Order 13 is that on provincial basis retrenchment can be made. It rests with the Board or the authority authorised by the Board to fix the seniority. The word 'category' used is Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 means category in an establishment. If the whole business concern is one establishment it will be one unit but if B it consists of various establishments,; each one will be a separate unit and the Standing would mean category of that unit. So far as District-wis seniority is concerned, the appellant duly proved that the rule of 'first come last go' was observed. Seniority list is on the files.
5. As upshot of the above discussion, I accept the appeals, dismiss the cross-objection and dismissing the grievance petitions of the respondents, restore the orders of their termination of services.