Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SKR‑245 of 1969, decided on 30th January 1970.

----S. 37‑Workman connected with pending industrial dispute‑‑Word "connected" to be given liberal interpretation‑‑Every workman is interested in result of industrial dispute and is therefore connected with same‑Permanent workman discharged without any reason No case of retrenchment‑‑Provisions of S. 37, in circumstances, held, violated‑Re‑instatement with full back wages, awarded by Industrial Court, in circumstances, upheld.

Mahboob Rizvi for Appellant.

Wasiullah Qureshl for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 30th January 1970.

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman of the First West Pakistan Labour Court, Karachi, dated 7^th November 1969, whereby he allowed the application of the respondent under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), ordering that the respondent be re‑instated with full back benefits

2. I have gone through the order. It is a well considered order. The services of a permanent workman could not be terminated without any reason. It was not the case of the appellant that the Department was reducing the number of conductors and that the respondent being the junior‑most man had become surplus and, therefore, his services were terminated. It is a case of simple termination of service without any cause.

3. Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that there was no violation of 'section 37 of the repealed Ordinance. There is not much force in this conten tion. One of the terms of service of an employee of the appellant Corporation is that his services cannot be terminated without sufficient cause. In the present case, as I have already held that, the services of the respondent were terminated without any cause, it would amount to alteration in the terms and conditions of service of the respondent. Section 37 of the repealed Ordinance, was, therefore, violated.

4. In the second place, it was contended by Mr. Rizvi that the respondent was not connected with the pending industrial dispute. Admittedly, an industrial dispute was pending. I have held in a number of cases that the word "connected" in section 37 of the repealed Ordinance should be given a liberal interpretation. Every workman is interested in the result of the industrial dispute that may be pending and is, therefore, connected with the same.

5. I would, for, the reasons given above, maintain the order of the learned Court and dismiss the appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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