Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑41 of 1968, heard on 12th March 1969.

----Ss. 30 & 31 read with Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960), S. 0. 12‑Termination not for misconduct connected with pending industrial dispute‑Termination simpliciter‑Does not amount to violation of S. 30‑Application under S. 31, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Industrial Court.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Nasirul Hasan for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 12th March 1969.

The present appeal is directed against an order passed on an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The appellant was a Conductor in the Government Transport Service, Hyderabad. The facts as disclosed in the Memorandum of Appeal are these.

2. The appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 15th July 1968. Thereafter, by an order dated 1st February 1967, he was re‑appointed. The order dated Ist February 1967, was challenged by the respondent on the ground that it was a forged one and on that ground his services were terminated under section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961, read with Order XII of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960,

3. The learned Representative for the appellant contended that the order dated 25th August 1967, terminating the services of the appellant does not disclose sufficient reason within the meaning of section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. In order to apply the provision of section 30 of th repealed Ordinance, it is necessary to prove that the appellant was dismissed for misconduct connected with the industrial dispute. A perusal of the statement of Sharifuddin, appellant, which he made before the Industrial Court, under section 31 of the repealed Ordinance, would disclose that the appellant has failed to establish that there was any connection with the ground on which his services were terminated and the industrial dispute pending before the Court. On the face of it, the order dated 21st August 1967, terminating the services of the appellant does not show that his employment was terminated for misconduct. It is a termination of his employment simpliciter. He was ordered to be paid one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice. In this vie of the matter, it cannot be said that there was any violation o section 30 of the repealed Ordinance. The appeal is accordingly 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.