DECISION ' Aggrieved by order, dated 17th February, 2000 of the Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi, the appellant Inayat Hussain Mirza has filed this appeal. The appellant's case, as stated in his grievance petition, is that he was employed as driver in the Respondents Airways Corporation with effect from 16-9-1987. In addition to drivers' job he was also performing the duties of Traffic Assistant Special Handling. However on 20-7-1998 his services were brought to an end by letter of that date on the alleged ground of retrenchment and re-organization, though actual reason of termination of his services, according to his own version, was his tussel with the Station Master based at Karachi. Clarifying the tussel further it was stated that on the 4th July, 1998 the Station Master took the appellant into confidence by telling him that a lady passenger, Miss Marhaba had arrived from Tashqand with some contraband articles in her possession and therefore, the appellant was to escort the lady from arrival lounge to out of the Airport premises. But the appellant refused to do that. Thereupon the Station Master went himself to receive the said lady.
While he was escorting her towards the exit, the lady was apprehended alongwith the Station Master at the Custom Check. Due to this animosity the Station Master managed to get services of the appellant terminated. It was further pleaded by the appellant that the Airways Company was earning a lot of profits, enjoying a very sound financial position, therefore, the question of retrenchment of its employees or even of its re-organization did not arise. On receipt of termination order, grievance notice, dated 11-7-1998 was served by the appellant which was replied by the Respondents Company vide their letter dated 11-8-1998. Since the grievance remained unredressed, the appellant filed grievance petition on 26-9-1998 with the result mentioned above.
2. In Reply Statement while admitting that the appellant was working as driver in the service of Respondents Airways, it is denied that he ever performed additional duties of Traffic Assistant Special Handling which post never existed. The Respondents Airways Company have taken the plea that appellant's services were terminated as a result of retrenchment and not for any other reason. As stated in para (d) of the Written Reply the employees named in the said para were also simultaneously retrenched with the appellant. Ajab Hussain Raja, one of the retrenched employees, was also driver like the appellant. In fact he and the appellant were only drivers employed at Karachi Airport and after their retrenchment no other driver was appointed. Moreover the retrenchment was made strictly in accordance with seniority.
3. In support of his case the appellant filed his own Affidavit-inEvidence beside examining two witnesses namely Sher Akhtar and Islahuddin Siddiqui. On respondents' side the Affidavit-in- Evidence of Mr. Abid Rashid, Senior Station Master was filed.
4. In order to dispose of this case, the only point to be determined was whether the order of termination of the appellant's services was bona fide or mala fide. For decision of this point the conflicting versions of the parties have got to be reconciled. Taking up the version of the appellant first, it looked doubtful if the Airport Officer of the Station Master's stature would take into confidence-such a low ranking employee like a driver (appellant) on such a sensitive issue relating to smuggling of the contraband articles out of the Airport premises. Of course this was possible even between two persons of unequal ranks provided there existed unshakeable bond of mutual confidence between them and the Station Master was dead sure about the appellant's co- operation with him. In that case it was almost impossible that the appellant would refuse to oblige the Station Master. His very refusal falsified the motive he attributed for termination of his services.
Admittedly the Station Master had no power to terminate the services of the appellant. If so, he was not in a position to settle scores with the appellant on account of aforesaid animosity between them. It is equally unbelievable that the Station Master could get the services of the appellant terminated by using his influence with the authority having power to order such termination particularly for the reason of his non-cooperation for escorting the lady who was smuggling the contraband articles. I am therefore, convinced that the appellant's version is cooked up and does not appear to be true. His services have been terminated not because of his refusal to oblige the Station Master for escorting the aforesaid lady with contraband articles in her possession.'
5. The appellant having failed to prove his version, it would follow that the alternate version put forward by Respondent Company was correct inasmuch as his services were terminated for the reasons stated by the Respondents Airways Company (i,e, Retrenchment). The truth of respondents' version was further confirmed by the fact that the appellant alone was not singled out for termination of his services on the ground of retrenchment/recognization. It has come on record that several other employees including even the second driver Aijaz working at the Airport were removed form service. It is also clear from the record that on the exit of both the drivers no other driver was appointed but instead P.I.A. Staff were doing that work.
6. Of course neither party has convincingly proved that the Airway Respondent's Company was earning profits or was running in loss, but the fact that not only the appellant's but also the services of several other employees were terminated, almost simultaneously was a sort of signal that the financial position of the Respondents Airways Company was far from satisfactory and therefore, they had no choice but to resort to retrenchment of certain employees.
7. Apart from the above, as provided in Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the employer has power to terminate the services of any workman on fulfilment of specified requirements. The requirements are: (1) The order of termination should be in writing (2)
' Explicit reasons be given for termination (3) one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof be given. In the present case all these requirements were admittedly fulfilled. This was not a case of misconduct necessitating the holding of enquiry and therefore, no enquiry was held. On perusal of the termination order (A/1 at page 29 in Lower. Court's record), it confirms what has been stated above.
' For above reasons I see no justification to differ from the Lower Court's decision which is hereby upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.