1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman of the West Pakistan Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore dated the 7th of February 19 70, whereby he ordered that the respondent be re-instated with full back benefits to the post from which he was dismissed on the ground that no show-cause notice was given to him as to why he should not be `dismissed from service and that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to him when the order dismissing him was passed. At the very outset I may state that the admitted position is that the order is not in conformity with the facts of the case. The respondent in his application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, had asked for two reliefs, namely, (1) That the order terminating the services of the respondent dated 15-3-1967 be cancelled and (2) That the respondent be allowed all the privileges, which were available to the workman prior to 26th March 1966. It may be mentioned here that admittedly the respondent was re-employed on 15th May 1967. In other words he was already in service on the date when he made the application on 6th of February 1968.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these. The respondent was appointed on the 21st of May 1965, temporarily as a Junior Clerk. His services were terminated on the 15th of March 1967, on the ground that his post was abolished. Thereafter he was offered the same job on temporary basis on 15th of May 1967, which he accepted without any condition. He continued in service when on 6th February 1968, he made the application-giving rise to the present appeal under section 31 of the repealed Ordinance.
3. The appeal is by the Road Transport Corporation. There is no cross-appeal before me. For the disposal, of this appeal I would take it that the services of the appellant were terminated on 15th March 1967, on the ground that the post that he was holding was abolished. In other words it was a case of termination of service simpliciter. I would also hold that the services of the respondent were terminated on 15th March 1967, while he was still a temporary hand.
4. Mr. Naseerul Hassan, the learned Representative for the appellant contended in the first place that the question of re--instatement of respondent did not arise as he was already in service. There is much force in this contention. The appellant was already in service when he made an application on 6th of February 1968.
5. In the second place the learned Representative contended that the respondent is not entitled to full back benefits. In this connection Mr. Naz, the learned Representative for the respon--dent contended that the respondent would be entitled to the benefits at least from the date that he was re-appointed on 15th May 1967. In this connection Mr. Naz made a reference to rule 17 of the West Pakistan Minimum Wages Rules, 1962. It runs as under: Rule 17. -(1) If a contract between a worker to whom minimum rate of wage applies and his employer provides for payment of a Wage lower than minimum rate of wage fixed under the Ordinance, the contract shall have effect as if for that lower wage there were substituted the minimum rates fixed under the Ordinance.
(2) Any contract or agreement, whether made before or after commencement of the Ordinance, whereby a worker purports either to relinquish or reduce his right to a minimum rate of wage or any privilege or concession accruing to lrim under the Ordinance shall be null and void in so far as it purports to reduce the minimum rate of wage fixed under the Ordinance."
6. The admitted position is that when the respondent was appointed in May 1967, the minimum wages fixed by the Board for -workers in Road Transport in 1964 was applicable. The short point will be as to whether the R. T. C. could reduce the wages and the privileges available to Junior Clerks prior to 26th of March 1966. Reading rule 17 already reproduced minimum wages fixed for workers in 1964, could not be altered by the R. T. C. It may be mentioned here that the R. T. C. realised its mistake anti rectified the same from July 1968. The fact, however, remains as the R. T. C. could not change the minimum wages fixed by the Board, the respondent would be entitled to the same from the date that he was taken in service on 15th May 1967. I may make it clear that under section 31 of the repealed Ordinance a workman could only ask for individual) redress, wand not ' on behalf of all. This order will apply only to the case of the respondent. In the result the respondent will be entitled to the benefits that were available to him under the Minimum Wages fixed for workers is Road Transport in 1964 from 15th of May 1967. In other words the respondent will get all the benefits, which wire available to any workman prior to 26th of March 1966.