Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. HYD‑55 of 1972, heard on 27th October 1972.
, S. 2(g). Sched para. 1(b), (c) & S O. 12‑Termination of service‑Person employed originally for a period of three months and on expiry of 3 months period again employed for one month wlt4 condition of termination if work completed earlier‑Employment' not on probation but specifically for one month terminable event earlier if work finished‑Such person, held, not a permanent worker‑Termination of service of such person, held, does not involve violation of S. O. 12.
Ghulam Hasan for Appellant. .
Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 27th October 1972.
This is an appeal against an award dated June 20, 1972, whereby the learned Chairman of the Labour Court ordered the re‑instatement of the respondent with full back benefits. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The respondent was employed as a Fitter on 1st August 1969, for a period of three months. After the expiry of the said period, he was again employed for another one month, but if the work finished earlier his services were to stand terminated from that date.
3. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was a permanent employee and, therefore, there was violation of Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. On that ground he ordered the re‑Instatement of the respondent.
4. Mr. Ghulam Hasan, the learned Representative for tine appellant‑company, contended that the respondent was not a permanent employee. The term of contract on which he was employed clearly made out a case that he was a temporary employee. The two letters of the employment, one dated lot August 1969 and the other dated 1st November 196 , are on record. It is clearly mentioned In these two letters that the respondent was a temporary employee. The condition mentioned in the definition of permanent workman In the Standing Orders Ordinance has not been complied with to this case. The respondent was not employed on probation. Moreover, the letter dated Ist November 1969; specifically mentions that the respondent was employed for one month only, and if the work finished earlier his service will be terminated forthwith. In these circumstance the respondent cannot be said to be a permanent employee. There was no violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
5. The learned representation for the appellant also contended that the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, was not maintainable, as he had already made an application under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders ordinance 29th December 1969, which he with drew without permission of file a fresh application. At any rate, the learned Representative contended that section 34 of the Ordinance of 1969, was of general application and the remedy of the respondent lay under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance alone. It is not necessary to go into this question, as I have already held that the respondent was not a permanent employee, but only a temporary one. The appeal is allowed and the award of the learned Chairman of the Labour Court is set aside.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer