NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-1963 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.271 of 1983.
2. The facts briefly are that respondent No.1 was employed on 1985] Punjab Road Transport Board v. S.D.
Burney (Nasim Hasan Shah, J)5-2-1980 as a Senior Auditor, on a temporary basis, in the Punjab Road Transport Board. On 31-7-1980, his services were terminated on the ground of having become surplus by way of retrenchment. However, on 4-12-1980 one Muhammad Akram, who was serving as an Accountant, was promoted to his post. In the meantime, respondent had moved the Punjab Labour Court No.1 against his retrenchment under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming, inter alia that after his retrenchment some under posts had fallen vacant and so he could be adjusted against those posts. This plea was not considered because the Labour Court was of the opinion that he had only to examine whether respondent No.1 had become surplus on 31-7-1980 and not the question whether any posts had fallen vacant after the said date. His petition was, therefore, dismissed by the Presiding Officer by his order dated 7-3-1981.
3. On appeal by respondent No.1, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore set aside the order of the Labour Court on the ground that as respondent No.1 was out of service he should be recalled when a vacancy occurred instead of promoting a person from a lower post. The appeal, was accordingly, accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, vide its order dated 15-3-1983 and the petitioner-Board was directed to reinstate respondent No.1 in service, from the date on which after his termination the first permanent vacancy in his cadre arose. However, the respondent was not found entitled to the back benefits.
4. Dissatisfied with the above decision, the petitioner-Board filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed, by the order impugned before us. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqi, as well as Mr. M. Zaman Qureshi Advocate, who has appeared in support of the caveat lodged by the respondent.
6. We consider that the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any legal error and, therefore, does not require any interference. In this connection we may refer to the Standing Orders Nos. 13 and 14 of the Wet Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968:- 13.Procedure for retrenchment-- Where any workman is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen, the employer shall retrench the workman who is the last person employed in that category.
(Note--Junior most workman are to be retrenched first without any exception).
14.Re-employment of retrenched workman-- Where any of workman are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employment any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment, he shall give an oppor--tunity to the retrenched workmen belonging to the category concerned, by sending a notice by registered post to their last known addresses to offer themselves for re-employment and they shall have preference over other persons, each having priority according to the length of his service under the employer: Provided that ---------------------
7. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is quite consistent with the principles underlying the above Standing Orders and cannot, therefore, be validly objected.
This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.