1. ORDER Barkat Ali (hereinafter called the petitioner) made an application to the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O, against the Management of Pakistan Chip Board, Jhelum alleging that the order of his dismissal from service is illegal. His case as per his statement recorded by the Junior Labour Court is that he joined the respondent factory as an Electrician and worked as such for 7 years. He was elected as General Secretary of the Union and was dismissed from service on 9th February 1971. This Court re-instated him on 18th December 1972 but later on he was again dismissed by the Management on 5th August 1973. He further stated that he is the General Secretary of the Union and has been victimized for Trade Union activities. The respondent factory resisted the petition and contended that due to shortage of raw material it was forced to stop one shift resulting in the retrenchment of 18 workers including the petitioner. The Junior Labour Court by its order dated 17th September, 1973 re-instated the petitioner with half pay alongwith other consequential benefits for the intervening period. Feeling dissatisfied with this order both the parties have come up in appeal to question its correctness. The Management has contended that application under section 25-A of the I.R.O, made by the petitioner for his re-instatement deserves dismissal while the petitioner claims that he is entitled to full wages and other consequential benefits for the intervening period. As both the appeals are against the same order, therefore, they shall be decided by this common order. Arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. The learned counsel for the Management has contended that the services of the respondent were dispensed with as a result of retrenchment in accordance with law for reasons beyond the control of the Management and the Junior Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. He further contended that there was no justification for the Junior Labour Court to make a comparison between the petitioner and Imam Din, Supervisor as both of them belong to different categories and that the petitioner being the only person in the category, his retrenchment was perfectly legal as the work previously done by him can be carried out by Imam Din, Supervisor alone. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the work of electrician is very much there and has not come to an end, therefore, the retrenchment was unjustified. This contention appears to be well founded. In para. 6 of the Memoranda of appeal it is stated "that respondent being the only person in the category his retrenchment is perfectly justified as the work previously done by him could be carried out by Imam Din, Supervisor alone. The question of shift system is not relevant to the retrenchment of the respondent. The appellant is the best judge whether he requires the services of the respondent or not". From the above it is clear that the work previously done by the petitioner has been entrusted to Imam Din. Since the work which the petitioner was doing in the establishment has not come to an end, therefore, there was no justification, to terminate his services. The order of hisl termination being illegal and improper, the petitioner is entitled to full wages and other back benefits for the intervening period. | For the foregoing reasons the appeal of Management is dismissed and that of Barkat Ali petitioner is accepted. The Management is directed to pay him full wages and other benefits for the intervening period within a fortnight from today.