DECISION This is an appeal against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, dated 6-12- 1988, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was dismissed.
2. The admitted facts of the case are, that the appellant who was employed as a workman by respondent No,1 was retrenched in the year 1983. However, in the order of retrenchment, the appellant was informed, that "as and when any vacancy occurred the person on the top of the seniority will be issued offer by registered A.D. and in case he fails to respond then next person would be given offer. In case nobody responds or if there is neither on the waiting list, then the post may be filled in the normal manner by observing the procedure prescribed under rules."
3. In 1988, however, the respondent No,1 had employed two of the retrenched workers, namely, respondents Nos.2 and 3, but had not employed the appellant, who was admittedly senior to them before the retrenchment. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant after serving grievance notice filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
4. Respondent No,1 was present in person and had informed the Tribunal that 300 workers were retrenched and only 2 vacancies had occurred in 1988 in which present respondents Nos.2 and 3 were employed. The learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition on the ground that under Standing Order 14, the retrenched worker had the right of re-employment if the vacancy occurred within 12 months whereas in the present case, the vacancy had occurred after 5 years and, therefore, this right under Standing Order 14 did not accrue to the appellant. Under section 25- A, a worker can enforce only such rights which are guaranteed by Law, Award or Settlement for the time being in force. The right, if any conferred by this order of retrenchment upon the appellant can't be considered a right guaranteed by Law or Award or Settlement to be enforced through the Labour Court. As such, the learned Labour Court had already held that the grievance petition was not maintainable.
5. Mr. Ehsanul Hach learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 1989 SCM R 353, where their Lordships have held that departmental practice-interpretation that had been consistently followed by department and which had become a long standing practice-had almost acquired force of law. Such practice could not be lightly departed from. The facts of the reported case are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case as in the reported case the question before their Lordships was the interpretation of a Schedule of Customs Act with regard to the expression "Waste and scrap", therefore, their Lordships have held that the interpretation consistently put by the department on this Expression should not be lightly departed from. I accordingly dismiss this appeal.