1. This is a petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., against the order, dated 14February, 1976 through which the services of the petitioner were terminated.
2. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent Corporation had opened a Branch Office at Peshawar which was functioning since 1st April, 1975 that the petitioner was appointed as a peon by the respondent on 2nd May, 1975 at Peshawar Office where he worked to the entire satisfaction of his superior till 14th February, 1976 that on 14th February 1976 the services of the petitioner were terminated for the reason that the respondent was closing the establishment at Peshawar, that not only the establishment at Peshawar was illegally closed but the reason advanced by the respondent for terminating the services of the petitioner was not tenable. It was contended that the petitioner was a senior person and even if some persons had to be retrenched, it could not have been the peti--tioner because there were so many other incumbents who were junior to the petitioner. It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be re-instated with full back wages.
3. An ex parte order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 29th May, 1976, The respondent, however, applied for the setting aside of the ex parte order and the order was set aside on payment of costs vide the order of this Court, dated 21st June, 1976.
4. The petition was contested. As preliminary objection it was contended that the petition was not competent and that it was not maintainable in this Court. On merits it was contended that the petitioner was an employee of P.
1. S. F. A. office at Peshawar which establishment had only three employees. It was further contended that as the Peshawar Study Circle for which the petitioner was employed was closed therefore the services of the petitioner were terminated because their services were no longer required.th The parties were afforded an opportunity to produce such evidence as they wished.
5. Arguments heard, file perused.
6. Exh. P. 2. is the letter of the petitioner's appointment. This letter clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed as a peon by the National Film Development Corporation Ltd. He was to be governed by the rules and regulations of the Corporation and was liable to be posted anywhere in the whole of Pakistan and thus the contention of the respondent that the petitioner was an employee of the Peshawar Study Circle is wholly incorrect. Hence the fact that the Peshawar Study Circle was closed whether rightly or wrongly, would not justify the corporation to do away with the services of the petitioner.
7. It has been seen that the petitioner was an employee of the NAFDEC and was not the employee of its Subordinate Film Study Circle at Peshawar therefore the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on the grounds given in Exh. P.1 (the letter through which the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with).
8. The respondent is a limited company and there is no doubt that the petitioner is a workman and his services were wrongly terminated at Peshawar which fact gives jurisdiction to this Court. The petition is thus accepted and the petitioner is reinstated with full back wages.