1. The petitioner has lodged the present petition on the ground that he was hired as Security Guard by the respondent on 19th May, 1968 and was retrenched on 20th March, 1974 on the ground of forced reduction. The peti--tioner further contends that he was a senior worker and persons junior to him have been retained, hence his retrenchment is illegal being in violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Moreover, the petitioner has contended that about 9 other Security Guards whose services had been terminated have since been reinstated in compliance with the orders of the Labour Secretary (the then Central Labour Commissioner, N.-W. F. P.) who are performing their duties as such.
2. That due grievance notice was given to the respondent by the petitioner but to no avail.
3. That the T. J. V. authorities were bound by the settlement dated 8th May, 1972 arrived at between them and the C. B. A. Union, hence this peti--tion.
4. The parties were heard at length and the file of the case was also gone through carefully. The arguments of the parties and the perusal of the file revealed the following facts :-
(1) That the petitioner was employed as security guard on 19th August, 1968.
(2) That he was retrenched on 20th March 1974 on the ground of forced reduction.
(3) That there had been settlement on 8th May, 1972 between the T. J. V. authorities and the C. B. A.
5. Union (Exh. P C) according to which it was agreed to and decided that :- "Dr. Mackel stated that Departments of Security, Safety and Fire were of independent nature and that retrenchment in these sections would take place on project basis on the principle of "LAST COME FIRST GO".
6. The file also contains photostat copy of the orders of Mr. Moinuddin Khan, Secretary Labour and the then Central Labour Commissioner, N.-W. F. P. dated 22nd May, 1974 (Exh. PB') which are as under :- "Please refer to your letter No. T J V/LAB-3/ PERS, dated 10th May 1974.
7. It does not matter whether members of your security staff qualify as workmen under the Standing Orders Ordinance or not. You are bound by the settlement dated 8th May, 1972 and according to the same, security safety and fire departments are to be treated independently and retren-- chment in these sections has to take place on project basis. The accepted principle for retrenchment is "last come first go." This should also be followed in the security, safety and fire departments. Where any retrenchment has been made in contravention of this principle the mistake be rectified immediately. Please treat this as final."
8. It is worthwhile to note that in para. No. 2 of the petition the petitioner has given names and badge numbers of the workers who though junior to him in service as security guards have been re- instated in service. This para. has not been specifically denied in written comments filed by the respondent. Para. No. 2 of the petition shows that except the worker Badge No. 1065 all others mentioned therein are junior to the petitioner his badge number being 10181, hence it becomes manifestly clear that settlement dated 8th May, 1972 (Exh. PC) and the orders of the then Central Labour Commissioner dated 22nd May, 1974 (Exh. PB) have not been complied with by the respondent in the case of the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to 'Exh. PA' it is a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 30th May, 1974 between the then Central Labour Commissioner and the T. J. V. authorities and has contended that at page I of Exh. PA it is recorded that :--- "After much discussion it was agreed that the termination orders already issued would stand but that .---
(a) in future T. J V. abide by the ruling given by the Central Labour Commissioner i.e. "last come first go" as regards retrenchment in the Safety and Security sections"
10. Hence the learned counsel argued that in view of the above, the services of petitioner having already been terminated on 20th March, 1974 the case of the petitioner having already been decided it has become a closed chapter and he cannot pray for his re-instatement, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his contention, firstly because the C. B. A. Union was not a party to the meeting.
11. Moreover, mere meeting between the Labour Secretary, N.-W. F. P. and the T. J. V. in the absence of the C. B. A. Union any decision arrived at in the said meeting cannot override the settlement dated 8th may, 1972 (Exh. PC) arrived at between the C. B. A. and the T.J. V. authorities and cannot affect the already passed orders of the then Central Labour Commissioner dated 22nd May, 1974 (Exh. PB) vide which the T. J. V. authorities were directed to follow the principle of "LAST COME FIRST GO" in case of retrenchment of the security staff. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the present petitioner is barred by laches as the petitioner has lodged the present petition after 7/8 months of the termination of his services but I do not find any force in his argument because the file shows that vide 'Exh. PE' the petitioner did take steps against the termination of his services by applying to Labour Officer, Tarbela within three months of termination of his services.
12. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it was incumbent on the respondent to abide by the settlement dated 8th May, 1972 (Exh. PC) and the orders of the then Central Labour Commissioner dated 22nd May, 1974 (Exh. PB) and should have followed the principle of "LAST COME FIRST COO" in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner being senior to so many security guards is his category in T. J. V. the order of his retrenchment is not at all justified in view of the circumstances of the case.
13. Hence I direct as under :--
(1) Ahmed Khan ex-Security Guard Badge No. 10181, be re-instated as such.
(2) As the petitioner did not work from 20th March, 1974 onwards, I deem it just and proper to direct that the period from 20th March, 1974 upto the date of his re-instatement be treated as leave without pay so that there should not be any break in his service.