DECISION The appellant was appointed by the respondents as a Security Guard on 3-3-1987 and his services came to be terminated on 29-1-1992. The security duties had been entrusted to a contractor.
2. The appellant admits that before the termination of his service, M/s. Shahzada Security Service had taken over duties from 1-1-1992. Later --Intezam International had replaced them from 15-3- 1992 who were equipped "with all the latest security techniques, systems and implements".
3. Admittedly the appellant was the junior most of the security guards. The fact however is that all of them had been disbanded because of the change that had come. The rights of an employer to organise the running of his affairs is an internal matter. Looking to the security problem that Karachi is facing, one cannot otherwise find fault with the decision of the respondent to opt for improved security arrangements.
4. The appellant had stated that in-between he had also worked as Time--keeper in place of Muhammad Sadiq and this part of the statement was not subjected to cross-examination.
Unfortunately for him this question was put to Owais. Amir Ali in cross-examination and he denied the same. So, even that ground for whatever it is worth does not remain available any more.
Otherwise too Muhammad Sadiq had not been examined and we are left only with the words of the appellant.
5. There is no merit in this appeal. I will, therefore, affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.