Find a Lawyer

Application No. 169 of 1970, decided on 29th April 1971.

‑Termination, of employment‑Employee having served for more than 9 months‑ Permanent employee --Entitled to one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice Application for re‑instatement not accepted, employer directed to pay one month's wages and encash annual leave of 13 days in case he wanted to terminate service of such employee.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Applicant.

Abdus Sattar for Respondents.

This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Shamshad son of Umer Din who worked as pressman with the respondents New Way Dry Cleaners, Hyderabad. The respon dents served a notice on him dated 9th April 1970 terminating his services. Subsequently the services of Shamahad were terminated from 7th May 1970. Through this application the applicant wants me to re‑instate in service.

Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi appears with the workman Shamshad. Abdul Sattar, Proprietor of New Way Dry Cleaners is also Present. Contentions of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi are as follows: ‑

(a) this is a case of removal as punishment and the workman could not have been. removed without following the procedure.

(b) the notice was actually received by the workman on 7th May 1970 and, therefore, he is entitled to one month's pay and payment fur earned leave, etc,

Section 19 of the West Pakistan Shop and Establishment Ordinance, 1969 runs as follows:

Termination employment. (1) For terminating employ ment of a permanent employee, one month's notice in writing shall be given either by the employer or by the employee and in lieu‑of notice, one month's wages calculated can the basis of average of wages, earned during the preceding three months shall be paid.

(2) No temporary employee, whether monthly rated, weekly rated or daily rated, and no apprentice shall be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu thereof if his services are terminated. but the services of a temporary employee shall not be terminated as a punishment unless he has been given an opportunity of explaining the charges levelled against him."

In this case the respondent admits that the workman remained in his service for a period of about 13 months. He, therefore; does not fall within the category of temporary employee and hence section 19 (2) is not applicable to his case. Thos employer, therefore, could terminate his services by giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. I will therefore, require the respondent to pay one month's Wages to the workman and encash annual leave of 13 days if the wants to terminate his service. There is no case for re-instatement.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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