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. KAR‑306 of 1976, heard on 30th November 1976.
-----S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12(3) Removal from service of permanent employee‑Cannot be effected by oral order‑Order in writing necessary for purpose‑Person having put in 4 months' service‑A permanent employee.
‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (Vi of 1968),.S. O. 12(3) Workman‑Settlement reached between employer and Union specifi cally providing for applicability of all provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance to member, objection as to respondent (a midwife) being not a workman, held, not tenable and S. 12(3) applicable.
Masood Mirza for Appellant.
S. P. Lodhi for Respondent.
Data of hearing: 30th November 1976.
This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court ordering re instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O.
2. The respondent was employed as midwife and she served for 4 months. The respondent alleged that she was forced to resign on 17th May, 1975, but when this fact came to the notice of Dr. M. U. Baqai,
In‑charge of C. C. Unit and partner of the appellant, he persuaded her to withdraw the resignation. Consequently, on 28th May, 1975 she submitted a withdrawal application and it was accepted by Dr. M. U. Baqai. She resumed duties on 29th May, 1975 but on the same day she was called by Mr. Timsal Askari, the Personnel Officer of the appellant and was told to leave the place as her services were verbally terminated. After serving the grievance notice she approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and it was contended as per statement of Mr. Timsal Askari that no withdrawal application was ever made and the plea of the respondent was false.
4. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclu3ion that the withdrawal of the resignation was accepted by Dr. M. U. Baqai and the oral removal of service by Mr. Timsal Askari, the Personnel Officer was mala fide and could not be given effect. Dr. M. U. Baqai was competent to accept the withdrawal of the resignation. It may be noted that Mr. Timsal Askari was subordinate to Dr. M. U. Baqai. The application of the respondent was allowed and re‑instatement was ordered. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. It is an admitted position that the respondent had resigned and subsequently her resignation was withdrawn and accepted by Dr. M. U. Baqai. She had put in 4 months' service and, therefore, she was a permanent employee. In order to remove her from service an order in writing was necessary in view of the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) o Standing Orders Ordinance and, therefore, removal by an oral order was bad in law. In order to meet this, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning o the Standing Orders Ordinance and, therefore, Standing Order No. 12 (3 was not applicable. There is no force in this contention in view of the settlement which was reached between the Management and the Union, specifically providing that all the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance shall be applicable. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the appellant is overruled.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer