Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑150 of 1969, heard on 17th April 1969.

---S. 7--Dismissal without sufficient cause ‑ Amounts to alteration of terms and conditions of service‑Bus Conductor charged of misconduct or habitual negligence and neglect of work‑Findings of domestic enquiry not proving guilt of habitual negligence or neglect of work‑Re‑instatement awarded by Industrial Court, in, circumstances, upheld.

Sirajud Haq Qureshi for Appellant.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th April 1969.

This is an Appeal under section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The respondent was employed as conductor in G. T. S., Hyderabad. He was charge. sheeted for misconduct under section 7(2)(1), for habitual negligence or neglect of work, of the ‑Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. After the enquiry he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 18th December 1967. The respondent made an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter called the Repealed Ordinance. The application was allowed acid the respondent was ordered to be re‑instated with no back benefits.

The Department was dissatisfied with the order of the learned Industrial Court and has filed this Appeal. The main contention of Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant is that the respondent was dismissed for misconduct not connected with the Industrial Dispute. It is true that the respondent was dismissed for misconduct not connected with the Industrial Dispute and therefore it was not necessary to take the permission of the Industrial Court for terminating the services of the respondent. In. this connection a reference may be made to a case decided by Supreme Court reported in 1961 P L C 1169. It was held in that case that where a workman was dismissed for misconduct not connected with the dispute there was no violation, of section 30 of the Ordinance. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, learned Representative for the respondent, however, contended that in the present case the respondent was dismissed from service without any sufficient cause. It is submitted that when a workman is dismissed without sufficient cause it would amount to alternation of the terms and conditions of service as embodied in section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. It lays down that the services of a workman shall not be terminated without sufficient cause. This is a condition of service of the workman. In the present case it is contended that no charge of habitual negligence or neglect of work has been established or found by the Enquiry officer and therefore the respondent cannot be said to have been dismissed for sufficient cause. I have gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the District Manager. There is no finding as to the habitual negligence or neglect of work. In the absence of any such finding I would hold that the respondent was dismissed without sufficient cause. This would amount to alteration of the terms of his service. The appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.