DECISION ' This appeal arises from the decision of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and reorganisation.
2. The appellant was employed as a Mechanical Foreman from August, 1982. He was working as a sister concern known as Balochistan Glass Works Limited where he had been posted by the Head Office, Hub Domestic Projects Limited, Uni Towers, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi. The appellant has produced order for grant of Annual Increment dated 24-2-1988 granted by Hub Domestic Products Limited, Karachi. His actual work was of repair and overhauling of Pumps. An attempt was made by the Management to redesignate the worker as an officer but the appellant who appears to be a shrewd man declined this offer of promotion as an Officer. Even then on 145-1992 the services of the appellant were terminated by a letter with immediate effect, reason being that in the process of re-organisation his services had become surplus.
3. It has not been shown by evidence that the Management had been directed by any Resolution passed by this Company to effect retrenchment by way of re-organisation. In fact there is nothing to suggest any such improvement in the Department. On the one hand the appellant was being promoted as a Manager and when he declined he was retrenched on account of the so-called re- organisation. This clearly shows that the Company wanted to get rid of him and re-organisation is only an excuse. The termination of service of the appellant is, therefore, mala fide. He has nearly reached the age of superannuation and they could easily retire him but they have obviously tried to save payment of his retirement dues. Since the Head Office was at Karachi and all these orders were being issued from the Head Office, the Karachi Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with this case.
4. The order of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service within a period of 30 days. The applicant had claimed back benefits in his petition supported by affidavit. This fact had not been controverted by the respondent-Company and it has not been shown that the appellant was gainfully employed after his dismissal. Under the circumstances full back benefits have been allowed.
' Order accordingly.