Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-8 of 1972, heard on 26th May 1972.

S. O. 12-Workman demanding supply of uniform and grant of usual facilities-Service ant terminated as simple termination under S. O. 12-Management in circumstances, held, resorted to .S. O. 12 as a pretext for doing away with the services of workman from an ulterior motive-Work man, in circumstances, directed to be re-instates,' and Management asked to charge-sheet the worker and proceed under law, if desired, within two months furling which workmen to be paid full hack bene fits.

Termination order set aside by Labour Court with directions to re-instate with back benefits--Recovery of lots if any suffered by employer due to any damage by workman could be made only when such loss proved after necessary charge-sheet and enquiry.

Mohammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant.

Masood Mirza for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th Miry 1972.

This is an appeal by two persons, namely, Adam Khan and Muhammad Ramzan, against an award- of the learned Ist Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated February 19, 1972. Adam Khan was employed as a Chowkidar. His services, according to the respondents, had been terminated under Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance). In other words, according to the respondents, it was a simple termination of services. So far as Muhammad Ramzan Is concerned, the learned Court ordered his re-instatement and made the following observation:--

"I set aside the order and re-instate the workman with full back benefits. It will be open to the respondents to deduct the loss which they suffered from the act of the workman from this amount."

2. Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has challenged the order deducting the loss suffered by the Management from the duct of Muhammad Ramzan.

3. So far as Adam Khan is concerned, he filed his affidavit in support of his contention. The grievance of Adam Khan is contained in para. 2 of the affidavit the relevant portion reads as under:-

"The Company locked out me on 2nd June 1970 illegally without giving any reason whatsoever. I say, I requested the Company to supply the uniform as usual and also grant facilities like other workers to chowkidars, but the company refused and instead the Head Chowkidar started harassing and coercing me and as such 1 applied for my transfer but the Company did not transfer nit and instead terminated my service."

4. There is no cross-examination of Adam Khan by the learned Representative for the Management. Taj Muhammad, who was the Secretary of the Union, supported the statement of Adam Khan In para. 7 of his affidavit. He has not been cross -examined by the Company in respect of the statement made by him about Adam Khan. In the result, the statements of Adam Khan and Taj Muhammad go unchallenged. The position will now, therefore, be that the termination of the service of Adam Khan will not be a simple termination of service within the meaning of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Company took resort to Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance only as a pretext of doing away with the services of Adam Khan for some ulterior reasons to which the Company could not do. If Adam Khan had com mitted any misconduct, he should have been charge-sheeted for the game. Admittedly, Adam Khan has not been charge-sheeted) so far. In these circumstances, I will order be re-instatement of Adam Khan. The Company would pay him Rs. 50.00 as costs of the appeal. So far as back benefits are concerned, Adam Khan will be entitled to the same only in case the Company fails to mate out a case of misconduct against him, if he is charge-sheeted. The Company has got to proceed against him within two weeks. In case no misconduct is proved against Adam Khan, he will be entitled to full back benefits from the date that his services had been terminated by the Company.

5. So far as Muhammad Ramzan is concerned, I have gone through the statement of Lt.-Col. Waqar Muhammad Naqvi, Personnel Manager of Messrs Ahmed Abdul Ghani Textile Mills. He bas not said a word about the damage caused by Muhammad Ramzan. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justification for the learned Court to have ordered that the Company would be entitled to deduct the amount for the damage caused by Muhammad Ramzan from his dues. The Company, however, will be entitled to charge-sheet Muhammad Ramzan for any damage that he may have caused to the Mill. In case it Is proved B that Muhammad Ramzan had caused any damage, the Company may recover the same in accordance with law. The Company must pay to Muhammad Ramzan full back benefits.

6. The award in respect of Adam Khan and Muhammad Ramzan is modified to the extent mentioned above.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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