DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated February 24, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered one Muhammad Haroon to be re-instated with full back benefits. The facts made out by Conforce Limited Workers'
Union (hereinafter called the respondent-Union), in its application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), are these.
2. Muhammad Haroon's services were terminated on 26th August 1972 because of his Union activities. On the other hand, the case of Messrs Conforce Limited (hereinafter called the appellant), was that as the project in which Muhammad Haroon was employed, had almost been completed the number of workers bad to be reduced. The services of Muhammad Haroon were terminated within the provisions of Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance). Muhammad Haroon filed his own affidavit, while Nasir-ud-Din Hasan, Labour Officer, filed his affidavit on behalf of the appellant, Muhammad Haroon has not been cross- examined. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of Muhammad Haroon were not terminated on the principle of `first-in-last-out'. The learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that there were other projects under the appellant concern, which were doing construction work and, therefore, Muhammad Haroon should have been absorbed in any one of them.
3. Mr. M. A. Shahani, the learned Representative for the appellant, very strenuously contended that the award has been given against a wrong person, inasmuch as the dismissing authority was the Engineer of the Project in which Muhammad Haroon was employed. There is not much force in this contention. The admitted position is that all the Projects belong to the appellant concern, who is interested in the result of the application filed by the Union. I am of the view that the award has been rightly given against the appellant.
4. In the next place, Mr. Shahani contended that the Court did not allow the appellant to cross- examine Muhammad Haroon. A perusal of the Order Sheet would disclose that the appellant had two dates for cross--examination of Muhammad Haroon. If the appellant did not avail of those opportunities, and on the third occasion made an application for adjourn--ment, the learned Labour Court rightly refused to adjourn the case. It cannot, therefore, be said, if the appellant did not avail of the opportunity to cross--examine Muhammad Haroon, that the Court acted arbitrarily.
5. In the third place it was contended that the termination of the service of Muhammad Haroen was in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, inasmuch as the work having been completed, the Engineer did not require the services of Muhammad Haroon. There is not much force in this contention. It would appear from the notice of the Union that Muhammad Haroon was being transferred from one project, to another. In that view of the matter, when admittedly, the other projects were running, Muhammad Haroon could have been transferred to any of those projects and the junior most person's services should have been dispensed with.
6. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Shahani that Habib Ullah cannot be said to be junior to Muhammad Haroon, as held by the learned Labour Court. In this connection, Mr. Shahani referred to Annexure `A', on the record, dated 22nd September 1972. A copy of this termination letter was tent to Habib Ullah, A. S.K., to take over charge from Muhammad Haroon. Mr. Shahani contended that Habib Ullah was Assistant Store Keeper, while Muhammad Haroon was doing purchase work. In the first place, there is nothing before me to say as to what work Muhammad Haroon was per-- forming. The very fact that Habib Ullah a as called upon to take over from Muhammad Haroon would suggest that the duties of Habib Ullah and that of Muhammad Haroon were inter, chargeable and were the same. I would hold that Habib Ullah was junior to Haroon.
7. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Labour Court dated 24th February 1973, is maintained.