DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, III at Karachi, dated 13-11-1990, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Aqeel, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.M.
Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was employed as Accounts Assistant by the respondents on 9-3-1977 but was later on promoted as Junior Assistant Accountant, when his services were terminated on 31-8-1987 on account of redundancy. Being aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondent and then filed the grievance petition.
4. The main contention of the appellant is, that some persons junior to him have been retained and the provision of Standing Order 12(3) have not been strictly complied with. In his affidavit-in- evidence he has specifically mentioned the name of Mr. Raees Ahmad Jafri but he had admitted that he was Accounts Assistant. It may be pointed that the appellant was admittedly promoted as Junior Assistant Accountant and therefore Mr. Raees Ahmad could not be said to be belonging to the same category as the appellant. In his cross-examination the appellant has admitted that all the three Junior Assistant Accountants were retrenched alongwith him within a few days. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that instead of retrenching him he should have been reverted to the post of Accounts Assistant. The learned Labour Court has repelled this contention of the appellant and has relied upon the case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v.
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447. In that case their Lordships considered the plea of the Supervisors, who were promoted as Supervisors from Salesmen and whose post of Supervisor was abolished, that instead of retrenchment they should have been reverted back as Salesmen. This contention of the Supervisors was repelled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court who held that the right to be reverted to the posts of Salesmen, from which post they were promoted to the posts of Supervisors, depended on as to whether they retained their line 4n the posts of Salesmen, on being promoted as `Supervisors'. There is no evidence in the instant case also that the appellant, retained a lien on the post of Accounts Assistant after his promotion as Junior Assistant Accountant As such this plea of the appellant has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court.
5. The next question that requires consideration is whether order terminating the services of the appellant complied with the provision of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which requires, that "services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken." The very language of this Standing Order shows that even in the case of retrenchment, the order has to be passed in accordance with the provision of Standing Order 12(3).
6. In the instant case the letter of termination of service of the appellant reads as under:- "We regret to advise that due to redundancy your services are no longer required and as such are terminated with immediate effect.
' However, you will not be required to serve the notice period and will be paid one month's pay in lieu thereof.
' You may collect your final dues, if any, from our H.O. Accounts Department on production of usual clearance certificate."
The only reason for termination of service of the appellant is shown to be 'due to redundancy his services were no longer required'. Word 'redundant' has been defined in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary to mean:- "Overflowing; copious; over copious; superfluous; of workers no longer needed and therefore dismissed".
' This order would, therefore, show that the appellant had become superfluous; and therefore his services were no longer needed. This order appears to comply with provision of Standing Order 12(3).
7. It is submitted by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondents that after the appellant had taken his 'full and final dues' he ceased to be an aggrieved person and therefore he had no right to file the grievance petition. In the cross-examination respondent stated that he had taken Provident Fund, but contended that it was not full and final settlement as he was not paid the profit.
He has examined one Iftikhar Ahmad, Accountant in the respondent firm who has stated that the Provident Fund, which workers contributed was doubled by the equal amount of the Company and was invested in Government securities and that the interest earned after such investment was distributed among the contributors every year. He has further stated, that the Provident Fund does not carry any profit of interest from any other source. He further stated, that the respondent regularly paid the interest of Provident Fund to the applicant, till the applicant refused to accept the interest on the Provident Fund vide Exh. 3/C. He states that letter Exh. 3-A, dated 2-9-1987 was prepared at the request of the applicant showing full and final settlement after his termination.
Thus the appellant had received full and final settlement and no dues remained outstanding against the respondents.
8. In the case of Rehman v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1983 PLC 210 a Division Bench of Sindh High Court held that :- "where amount representing accrued wages, notice salary and provident fund collections were tendered through cheques by employer alongwith termination order and such cheques were accepted and encashed by workman without demur, his right to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court stood extinguished."
9. From the above discussions it will be seen that the appellant had been retrenched from service in accordance with Standing Order 13 as he could not name any person in his category, who was junior to him but was retained in service. His plea that he should be reverted as Accounts Assistant was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. The termination order of the appellant is also in accordance with the requirement of Standing Order 12(3). He does not allege any mala fides against the respondents, rather admits in the cross-examination that all the Junior Assistant Accountants were retrenched. He has further admitted that gradually, by advancement of small construction companies, the work of respondent company was reduced. He further admitted that respondent company had been bringing retrenchment on various occasions for the last several years. He has also admitted that the project of Crescent Textile Mills, Faisalabad where he was working had been completed. Thus the 'retrenchment order' passed by the respondents is bona fide and does not call for any interference by the Labour Court or by this Tribunal.
10. I find no merit in this appeal which is, therefore, rejected.