Find a Lawyer

Appeal 215 of 1974, decided on 13th November 1974.

-- S. O. 15 read with S. 2(i)-Office Superintendent, Merely by designation without proof regarding nature of supervisory duties cannot be excluded from definition, of "workman" - Such workman even during probation period, held, cannot be removed from service on account of misconduct without proper inquiry

This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 6th June 1974 passed by the Presiding Officer Mr. Feroze Bakhat Qazi, Junior Labour Court, Sialkot on a petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. By the impugned order the petition of the appellant was dismissed hence this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have gone through the order of the Junior Labour Court and the record of the junior Labour Court.

The appellant admittedly jointed service of the respondent and was on probation. Exh. P. B. on the file of the Junior Labour Court is his letter of appointment with effect from 7th July 1973. On 31st December 1973 his services were terminated allegedly on account of continued absence with effect from 21st December 1973. The learned Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court came to the conclusion that as he remained absent for more than 10 days his services were rightly terminated by the Management.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that no doubt the appellant was probationer and his services could be terminated if it would have been a termination simpliciter but, services of the appellant were terminated for a misconduct of absence which has been specifically mentioned in his termination order. Services of a probationer or temporary employee cannot be dispensed with without a proper enquiry into the misconduct.

Learned counsel for respondent has agreed with this proposition but he is of the view that 'as appellant was an Office Superintendent meant to supervise and maintain office of the respondent concern, therefore, he does not fall under the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Learned counsel for the respondent has failed to prove as to the nature of his supervisory duties. By designating the appellant as Office Superintendent cannot exclude him from the definition of a workman. The appellant is a workman as defined by the Labour laws and his services could not be terminated for misconduct without enquiry.

For the foregoing reasons 1 accept this appeal and direct the Manage ment to hold a fresh enquiry into the misconduct of absence only and if this charge of absence comes out to be unfounded then the appellant will be entitled to back wages and other benefits from 21st December 1973.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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