1. AWARD This is an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, by Riaz Ahmad, an ex-Accounts Clerk of the Natural Gas Fertilizers Factory Limited, Multan. He was retrenched from service with immediate effect on the 9th of January 1968, being no longer required. His contention is that many clerks, who were junior to him, were working in the Accounts Section of the Fertilizer Factory and that an exception was made in his case without any reason. He further claims, that he was retrenched during the pendency of certain disputes in this Court with which was connected.
2. The respondent did not specifically deny, that clerks junior to the petitioner had been retained in service. In answer to para.3 of the application, it was merely stated, that it was vague and without any specific mention of the names of the juniors. Parties were allowed to produce evidence.
3. Arguments have been heard.
4. The contention of the petitioner, that he was concerned with the pending dispute cannot be denied, because Dispute No. 38/67 has raised demands on behalf of the employees of the factory for the grant of gratuity to them in the case of their discharge, dismissal termination or retirement after the completion of three service. Another demand relates to the payment of bonus to the employees of the factory for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that the petitioner is not interested in the dispute raised by the Union is not correct.
5. The petitioner, while appearing as his own witness, deposed, that at the time of his retrenchment, three clerks namely; Riaz---ul-Haq, Farooq-i-Azam and Muhammad Anwar were working in the Accounts Section and all of them were junior to him. His grievance is that the rule of natural justice and prudence of "last in first out" was not observed by the Management, while terminat--ing his services. The respondent examined one Zafar Ali, who admitted that the petitioner jointed service as a daily-rated clerk on 11-10-1965 and became permanent clerk on 13-4-66. Farooq-i---Azam joined service on 23-3-1.967, Riaz-ul-Haq on 17-8-1967 and Muhammad Anwar on 1-3-1967. He also deposed that Farooq-i. Azam and Riaz-ul-Haq were serving in the Accounts Section. However, in the case of Muhammad Anwar, he stated, that the former was a clerk in the Administration Department and was at present working in the Accounts Section. Even if we excluded the case of Muhammad Anwar, admittedly two clerks namely; Farooq-i-Azam and Riaz-ul-Haq were working in the Accounts Section and were junior to the petitioner.
6. It is the undeniable right of the Management to retain the services of those persons, who are really useful. Therefore, in all cases of retrenchment, some selection is called for. However, ordinarily the Management is expected to follow the rule o natural justice, which has recently become a rule of law by the provisions of Standing Order No.-13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, that where any workman is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen, the employer shall retrench the workman, who is the last person employed in that category.
7. There is no evidence worth the name, that Riaz-ul-Haq and Farooq-i-Azam, who were junior to the petitioner in the Accounts Department, were exceptionally brilliant and therefore, "extremely necessary". There is nothing to indicate, that the work of the petitioner is in any manner inferior to them. Therefore, even if the retrenchment in the Accounts Section was called for, the petitioner could not be despatched home on the mere allegation, that his services were no longer required. It was incumbent on the Management to follow the rule of natural justice of "last in first out".
8. There is a string of authority in support of the aforesaid proposition I shall quote only a few. In the case of Shaw Wallace (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi v. Staff Association of Company (1900 PLC 374), Mr. Muhammad Bux Memon, Industrial Tribunal, Karachi observed, that the question of retrenchment and reorganisation should be left to the discretion of the Management. However, it is just and proper that the retrenchment should be effected on the principle of "first in last out", subject to certain well-recognised exceptions.
9. The same view was reiterated in the case of Karachi Chamber of Commerce and. Industry v.
10. Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Employees' Union (1960 PLC 96) by the same Industrial Tribunal.
11. The Supreme Court of India in the case of J. w Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. Their Workmen (1961 PLC 79) observed :-- "If the preferential treatment given to juniors in effecting a retrenchment ignores the well recognised principle of "first come, last go" without any acceptable or sound reasoning, the, Industrial Tribunal would be justified in holding that the action of the employer is not bona fide.
12. Where certain workmen employed in a section of the workshop - are retrenched though their juniors in other sections of the workshop are retained in service, the Tribunal would justified in holding that the retrenchment was mala fide. In the case of clerks there is no particular or scientific skill required in one class of work than in another. Clerks are not trained to handle only a particular kind of work. Their work is easily convertible and one can replace another without any dislocation of work in a Department. There-- fore in the case of Clerks, the fact that they had gained experience would not be a valid ground for retaining juniors and terminating the service of seniors. It is only when the juniors are either trained men (e.g. copyists) or were specially selected on the N.69 of the trust reposed in them (e. g., cashiers) that the rule of "first come, last go" may be departed from.
13. In the case of B. O. A. C., Karachi v. Airways Employees' Ht Union (B. O. A. C, Branch), Karachi (1961 PLC 234) Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, Industrial Tribunal, Karachi, observed "The Corporation has agreed that it observes the principle of "first in, last out", which is universally recognised in all good business organisations. It is stated that there may be a few cases when the principle of `first in, last out' cannot be observed the Management, as they might wish to retain the services some exceptionally good employees. I see no harm to allow them a little deviation from the recognised rule in exceptional cases, but the broad rule must be followed,- that isto say that last man in should be the first man to go out."
14. It follows from the decisions quoted above, that ordinarily it is the duty of the Management, when retrenching a workman to follow the generally well-recognised' rule, of natural justice, that the workman who joined service last should be first to go out. Of course an exception can be made to this rule in exceptional cases, such as where the retention of the junior from the point of view of the Management is "extremely necessary". There is no evidence with regard to this in these proceedings.
15. Before concluding,- I might once again refer to the new provisions with regard to this subject in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. I am doubtful, whether in view of this provision, which has already- been quoted above, it is open to the Management now to make any exception. It appears to me, that it shall be incumbent on the Management in future to retrench only that workman, who is the last person employed in that category, where the retrenchment has become necessary.
16. However, even if it was open to the Management to deviate from the general rule, it has given no reason for such deviation. I, therefore, hold that there was no justification in terminating the services of the petitioner. The application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be re- instated with frill benefits within a period of a month from today.