| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3084 = 1981 SLD 3084 = 1981 PLC 261 |
National Industrial Relations Commission
Case No. 18(78) of 1980, decided on 8th October, 1980.
Presented By: Aziz Ahmad, Member
Case No. 18(78) of 1980, decided on 8th October, 1980.
Presented By: Aziz Ahmad, Member
FALAK SHAH
VERSUS
PERSONNEL MANAGER, D. N. C. JOINT VENTURE, TERBELA DAM
Law: Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952
Section: 6
Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952) S. 6 read with National Industrial Relations Commission Rules, r. 1-Termination on account of retrenchment-Within jurisdiction of Commission-No proof as to petitioner having been employed for a specific job-Last in first go-Principle not followed-Juniors continu ing in service-Termination purportedly a termination simpliciter in terms of appointment letter, in circumstances, held, illegal-Re-instate ment with back benefits awarded. DIRECTIONS This petition has been submitted by Mr. Falak Shah Badge No. 9060 labourer, D. N. C. Joint Venture against the Personnel Manager D. N. C. Joint Venture, Tarbela Dam under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitioner has submitted that he has been serving with the respondent since 30 September, 1979 but his services were terminated on 5th May, 1980 although junior workers have been retained in service. He has submitted that his termination was illegal and mala fide and that Directions be issued to re-instate him. The respondent in his parawise comments has raised preliminary objections relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with, this case. It has been submitted that the Commission was competent to entertain and adjudicate upon the petitions for enforcement of any rights guaranteed or secured to the workmen under any law, settlement or award. Since the petitioner's services were terminated by way of termination simpliciter within the terms and conditions of his service contract no right was guaranteed or secured to him under any law, settlement or award. It has further been submitted that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 not being appli cable in this case the petition should be dismissed on this score alone. According…