Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 365 of 1976, decided on 29th June 1976. 1

S. 25-A - Re-instatement-Workman challenging termination as illegal-Management contending leaving of service voluntarily-No proof to support termination on part of Management-Application for re-instatement, in circumstances, rejected.

Raja Abdur Rashid for Petitioner.

M. Bilal assisted by Tanvir Ansari for Respondent.

Petitioner has filed this petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for his re-instatement. Notice was issued to the respondent who has filed his written reply. Petitioner has examined himself as his own witness and has closed the evidence. In the likeway, respondent has also examined only one witness. Certain documents have been got exhibited by the parties. I have heard the arguments at length.

Brief facts involved in this petition are that petitioner was a Denter in the respondent Establishment for the last 6 or 7 years. He has served upto 24.1-1976, and it has been alleged by hire that 25-1-76, was a weekly holiday and when he went to resume duty on 26-1-76, he was refused duty and letter of termination was handed over to him by some one. This letter is Exh. P 1. It does not contain any number of despatch and it has not been signed by anybody. Only the name of Mr. Rashid A. Qureshi is typed there as an employer issuing that letter. Exb. P. 2 is a grievance notices given by the petitioner, it bears date as the Management on 20-2-76 had replied 6-2-76, it purports to have been signed by the same Mr. Rashid A. Qureshi, Manager Service. He has appeared as a witness and has admitted in his cross-examination that he never made any correspondence with the petitioner in this respect. Exh. R. I is a receipt by which wages for 24 days of his service in January, 1976, have been paid to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no enquiry was conducted into mis-conduct or mis-behaviour of the petitioner and his services could not be terminated without an enquiry.

Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Exh. P. 4 and has argued that Management on receipt of the grievance notice was surprised and bad replied to him that the Management bad already suffered a great loss on account of petitioner's absence. They never termina ted the services. He should come and join them. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that this letter was addressed to him C/o Mughal Autos. Police Station Road, Opp. Capital Cinema, Rawalpindi. Akram Mughal Autos is the petitioner s employer. He left the responders r of his own for better prospects and now he has made this petition only to extort something from the respondent to which it has not yielded.

Exh. P. 4 has been produced by the petitioner the fact that Mr. Rashid Ahmad Qureshi Manager Works has not entered into any correspondence with the petitioner is not established beyond doubt. It bears his legislatures. He was never confronted with those signatures and this letter was not pact to him in his cross-examination. He might have signed it in routine and might have forgotten. Petitioner has never made any complaint after 24-1-76, till the filing of this petition, except a grievance notice to the employer only to make out a case of termination. Exh. P. 1 is a receipt of wages for the month of January 1976, naturally he went to the Factory and asked for it which was paid to him.

In that view of the matter I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that petitioner left Weir service on his free-will and now have filed this petition to get something out of the respondent, and in that view of the matter I do not see any force in this petition. It merits dismissal and so it is hereby 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.