MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN

ORDER

This is a petition under section 38(5) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for non‑compliance of the order dated 11‑2‑1970 passed by the West Pakistan Industrial Court, Central Zone, Lahore, now called Labour Court No. 2.

2. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner, whose services were terminated vide order dated 5‑6‑1968 passed under the authority of the respondent, had filed an application against his dismissal under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 which was accepted and the West Pakistan Industrial Court ordered the respondent to re‑instate the petitioner in service immediately with full benefits vide order dated I1‑2‑1970. Aggrieved by that order the respondent came up on appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 30‑12‑1972. The respondent against the aforementioned order of this Tribunal filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The judgment of the High Court is reported in P L D 1972 Lah. 699. The respondent, thereafter, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.

3. It was contended by the learned representative of the petitioner that though the petitioner was re‑instated and given back benefits, he was not given his seniority and promotion which he was entitled to, if his services had not been terminated. In this respect only the respondent has not implemented the order of the Industrial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, conten ded that the petitioner had never been considered suitable or fit for promo tion even before his dismissal as such his claim to promotion was not tenable.

5. During the course of the arguments it was brought to my notice that the petitioner had already officiated as a foreman and mechanic in the temporary vacancy during 1965. This fact was admitted by the respondent s counsel which means that the petitioner was fit for promotion. It was also brought to my notice that during the absence of the petitioner from his department his juniors i.e. coolies, had been promoted as foremen. The respondent's counsel could not deny this fact. He, however, contended that the petitioner was ordered to be re‑instated with full benefits which did not mean that he was entitled to seniority or promotion. This contention has no force because re‑instatement means that his position is the same as if he had not been dismissed, therefore the petitioner will have the same rights, duties, privileges, and obligations as before.

6. In view of the above he is entitled to all the back benefits including seniority and right of promotion.

7. I, accordingly direct the respondent to comply with the order of the Industrial Court in the light of the above observations within one month from today. The petition is disposed of accordingly.