Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-78 of 1970, heard on 11th June 1970.

S. O. 12-Termination on grounds of physical unfitness-Termination simpliciter-Show cause notice-Not needed-Services of permanent worker declared medically unfit for service terminated without one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof-Labour Court's order re-instating such worker on grounds of failure of show-cause notice, in circumstances, set aside and worker, held, entitled to one month's pay in lieu of notice calculated on basis of last three months' average pay.

(b) Industrial dispute 7ermination simpliciter-Effective from date of service of termination notice.

Naseerul Hassan for Appellant.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th June 1970,

This is an Appeal against an order of the learned Chairman' of the West Pakistan Labour Court (Central Zone), Lahore, dated the 4th of February 1970, whereby the learned Court ordered the re-instatement of the respondent on the ground that no show-cause notice was given to him. The circumstances giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these. Admittedly the respondent was suffering from Tuberculosis from February 1967. He was admitted in hospital and from time to time on the recommendations of doctors he was granted leave. In the last certificate the doctor recommended him rest up to 30th April 1968. The District Manager wrote to the Medical Officer, Dr. Muhammad Latif Akhtar to examine the respondent whether he was fit for service or not. He issued Exh. R-2 declaring that the respondent was unfit for service due to Tuberculosis. The certificate is dated the 9th of February 1968. The respondent's services were terminated on 16th of February 1968, on the ground that he was unfit for service. In the letter dated 16th February 1968, Exh. P-7 he was to be paid all his dues on produc tion of Clearance Certificate. It may be noted that he was not given one month's wages calculated on the basis of average of wages earned by the workman during the last three months as required under Standing Order 12. Mr. Naseerul Hasan, the learned Representative for the appellant submitted that in case of termination of service simpliciter no show-cause notice is necessary. There is much force in the contention of the learned Representative. Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 contemplates termination of service simpliciter. The employer has got a right to terminate the service of his employees under Standing Order 12 otherwise than on misconduct. All that Standing Order 12 requires is that in case of permanent workman one month's notice in writing has to be given to the employees or one month wages calculated on A the average of wages earned by the workman during the last three months has to be paid in lieu of notice. The Res pondent admittedly was a permanent workman. The notice terminating the services of the respondent is one under Standing Order 12, that is, termination of service simpliciter. It is defective only in one respect that it does not specifically give him one month's wages as contemplated by Standing Order 12. The respondent should not have been ordered to be re-instated. He should have been allowed to get the pay fore one month as calculated on the basis of average earned by the workman during the last three months. Mr. Naz, the learned Representative for the respondent contended that the Appeal is time-barred. He, however, admitted after further calculation of the number of days that the appeal is well within time.

In the next place Mr. Naz contended that the permission of Industrial Court should have been obtained for terminating the services of the appellant. There is no force in this contention. The provisions of section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 were not attracted in the case of termination of service simpliciter. I need not elaborate this point.

In the second place it was contended that a notice to terminate the services of the respondent was necessary. I have already held that Standing Order 12 does not require that in case of termination time of service simpliciter a notice to show cause should also be given.

Although there is no appeal by the respondent, after going through the record of this case I find it necessary in the interest of justice to make it clear the date from which the notice terminating the services of the respondent dated 16th February 1968, is taken to be effective: The notice terminating the services of the respondent would be effective from the date that it was served on the respondent Ghulam Dastagir stated that the respondent had refused to sign the order terminating his services when it was handed ' over to him. Ghulam Dastagir, however, admitted that the respondent did not refuse to sign the letter terminating his services in his presence. There is no value of the statement of Ghulam Dastagir. Ghulam Dastagir admitted that the letter was sent through Station Superintendent, G. T. S., and Lyallpur. The Station Superintendent has not been produced. On the other hand Sher Muhammad deposed that the letter terminating his services was served on him in Office on 11th November 1968. There is nothing on record of this case to prove that the letter terminating his services was not served on the 11th November 1968. In that view of the matter the services of the respondent would be deemed to have been terminated, with effect from the 11th of November 1968. He will be entitled to pay whatever may be due under the Rules of the Corporation up to that date (11th November 1960) and one month's wages calculated on the basis of average of wages earned by the workman during the last three months in lieu of notice will also be paid to the respondent. In the result the order of the learned Court is modified to the extent that no show-cause notice was necessary in the circumstances of the present case and that the respondent will get pay if he was so entitled under the Rules of the Corporation up to 11th November 1968, and one month's pay in lieu of notice.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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