Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑306 of 1976, decided en 30th November 1976.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)‑--------

‑‑ S. O. 12(3)‑Termination of services of permanent workman by an oral order‑Held, bad in law‑Such an order must be in writing in view of provisions of S. O. 12(3).

Masood Mirza for Appellant.

S. P. Lodhi for Respondent.

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, Incharge of C. C. Unit and partner of the appellant, he persuaded her to withdraw the resignation. Consequently, on 28^thMay, 1975 she submitted a with drawal 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 tile conclusion that the withdrawal of the resignation was accepted by Dr. M. U. Baqai and the oral removal 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. Lt may be noted that Mr. Tismal Askari was subordinate to Dr. Badai. 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 It is an admitted position that the respondent had resigned and subsequently her resignation was withdrawn and accepted by Dr.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 bad put in 4 months' service and, therefore, she was a Perma nent employee. In order to remove her from service an order in writing was necessary in view of the provisions of Standing Order No. 12 (3) of 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 of 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, objection raised on behalf of the appellant is over ruled.

6. In the result the appeal is 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.