DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 12-1-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No,IV at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent Imtiaz All directing his reinstatement in service with twenty per cent (20%) back benefits, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case arc that the respondent claimed t be a permanent workman in the appellant establishment working as a Welder for a period of 7 years on daily wages of Rs,40 and as he was not allowed the right and privileges under the Labour Laws, he filed a case before the Authority under the Payment of ages Act and that on receipt of a notice from the said Authority, the appellant management was annoyed and caused harassment and threatened him with dismissal from service without notice, gratuity etc., unless the complaint before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is withdrawn. The respondent further claimed that on 1-4-1985, when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to resume the same without any charge-sheet or anything, in writing, which clearly amounted to his unlawful dismissal. Therefore, he approached the learned Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The respondent further claimed that some workers, junior to him, were also retained in service.
3. The appellant establishment resisted the petition on the ground that as the respondent was employed as a Welder on daily wage basis as there was a work of welding, therefore, his services were dispensed with as no welding work was available at the relevant time. Thus, it was further claimed by the appellant establishment that under the circumstances, the grievance petition of the respondent was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross-examined, thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. M.A.Rafiq Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and Mr.S.M. Kohistani, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well-reasoned and there is nothing wrong with it, therefore, it must be upheld. The appellant establishment has miserably failed to substantiate their case. However, it is an admitted position on behalf of the appellant establishment that the respondent was in their employment as a Welder and his work was satisfactory and that there was a work of welding in the establishment. It is also an admitted position of termination of the service of the respondent was quite illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, hence, it is set aside. The appellant establishment has failed to establish any cause of lawful and genuine retrenchment. In view of these facts and legal aspects of the case, I would maintain the impugned order.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with twenty per cent (20%) back benefits forthwith.