' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 3-9-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, whereby Muhammad Rafiq (hereinafter called as the respondent) has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Faisalabad Development Authority (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement in service of the respondent. As the two appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was treated as a work-charged worker and his services were terminated on the ground that they were no longer required. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was either a work-charged or a temporary employee as his services were terminated many a times and he was re-employed. The learned lower Court has rightly held that such orders are fake. As stated by R.W. 1, the respondent was marked present continuously eversince the date of his first appointment i.e, 1-2-1979 up to the last order of his termination, dated 30-6-1985. If the intervening orders of termination of service and of re-employment had been genuine, the respondent would not have been shown present during the period of gaps. It is thus clear that fictitiously his services were terminated and his re-employment was shown. This finding of the learned lower Court is also correct that while terminating the services of the respondent the rule of first come last go was not observed. As stated by R.W. 1, the seniority of all the clerks was joint. This being so, at the time of termination of services it should have been determined either that the respondent was junior or that none of his juniors was retained in service. Even this has not been proved that there was justification for the termination of the services of the respondent on various dates.
3. So far as. The appeal of the respondent is concerned, it is not without force. The respondent stated in his statement that eversince the date of I termination of his services he was jobless. The learned lower Court has not C given any reason for allowing only half of the back benefits.
4. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and accepting the appeal of the respondent he is allowed full back benefits.