Find a Lawyer

Application No. 88 of 1971, decided on 25th May 1972.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stand ing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)----

S. Os. 1(e) & 12(2)‑Tempo rary workman‑Employment for work of purely temporary nature lasting for specified period‑Termination on expiry of period sanc tioned for job‑No substitute recruited‑Termination of service without notice, in circumstances, held, not illegal.

Applicant in person.

Masood Mirza for Respondent.

In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, the applicant seeks re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.

'The applicant's case is that he was employed as a carpenter by the respondents. He had worked for 4 months, when his services were terminated on 11th July 1970, without any reason and without any charge‑sheet. He was not even paid wages from 1st July 1970 to 11th July 1970. According to him, his services were terminated because he was taking keen interest in th6 Union of the employees of the respondent concern. He moved the Labour Directorate for redress of his grievance, and they directed the respondents to pay his earned wages, but the respondents did not pay any heed. Hence, he has moved this application.

The respondents state that the applicant was engaged as a carpenter on 1st January 1970. On a temporary assignment which came to end on 30th June 1970. Consequently, the services of the applicant being no longer required were terminated on that date. They have denied that the applicant had worked after 30th June 1970 or that any wages are due to him. They contend that they were within their right to terminate the services of the applicant without notice, since he was a temporary workman engaged for a temporary assignment.

During the proceedings, the applicant examined himself and reiterated the averments made in his application. The respon dents examined their Personnel Officer, Agha Noor Nabi, who produced the true copy of the Order dated 11th February 1970. This is an order according sanction for engaging a carpenter and cushion maker for repair of furniture in Soviet residential bunga low, in the post which was extended from 1st January 1970 to 30th June 1970. Since the order of appointment or termination of the applicant was neither produced by the applicant nor by the respondents, Agha Noor Nabi filed an additional affidavit. Therein he stated that the applicant was engaged on casual basis on a purely, temporary assignment which had lasted from 1st January 1970 to 30th June 1970. According to the Rules of their Organisation, no orders of appointment and termination are issued to persons engaged on work‑charge basis.

Therefore, there can be no doubt that the applicant was engaged on the work which was of purely temporary nature, having lasted for 6 months only, though the applicant states that he bed worked for 4 months only. The applicant has not even claimed that the work was of a permanent nature or that any one else was engaged on it after his services were terminated. He ham also failed to prove that he had worked after 30th June 1970. Therefore, he was clearly a temporary worker within the definition of section 2 of the Schedule to the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. Consequently the respondents cannot be said to have acted illegally in terminating his services without notice. The application is, therefore, 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.