Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 158 of 1975.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

-- S. O. 12-Woikman appointed against a permanent job---Completed three months-Not a probationer-Termination of such workman without observing requirements of S. O. 12, held, illegal.

Appellant in person.

Nemo for Respondent.

An appeal has been filed by Rana Faqir Muhammad Ex-workman (Weighing Scale Clerk) against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court Multan, dated 8th April 1975, dismissing his application for reinstate ment in service of the respondent Management (Sin. Fazal-ur-Rehman dt Sons Mills Limited. Multan). He was terminated on account of unsatisfactory work as a probationary. On the appeal being filed notice was served on the respondent Management through Muhammad Anwar Personnel Manager, whose signature in token of the receipt of the notice have tallied with the one made by him on letter dated 11th February 1975, from the Management to the appellant in reply to his grievance notica. Since none has represented the respondent Management today, ex parte proceedings have been taken against it.

Admittedly the appellant was taken in service through appointment letter of 16th September 1974, wherein the job of Weighing scale Clerk was mentioned to be of permanent nature. The appellant stated working in the Factory on 21st September, 1974, and his services were terminated on the basis of letter dated 19th December 1974, exhibited as R-3 on the record of the learned lower Court. But this order of termination was not properly served on the appellant, whereas the letter maintained that he worked in the factory till k4th December 1974, and was locked out only on 25th December 1974, Muhammad Yar Labour Officer stated before the Junior Labour Court that the termination order was not sent to the appellant under a registered cover nor did he make it clear as to why the termination letter was not served on the appellant in the factory premises where he was supposed to work as probationer. Even if it be said that the appellant refused to receive the termination order as pleaded on behalf of the respondent Management, a report to that effect must have been made on the said orders with attestation of one or two witnesses. No doubt Faiz Ullah, Time Keeper, stated on behalf of the Management that the appellant had refused to accept the service of termination order on 20th December 1974, but he did not put any date under his report on the said order nor did he get his report attested by any witness on Eah. R. 3. He brought the attendance register in the learned lower Court but did not make any statement as to the presence or absence of the appellant in the factory on 20th December 1974. He simply presented the register before the Lower Court without making any statement on this point. Under such circumstances the plea of the appellant that he worked in the factory till 24th December 1974, cannot be easily brushed aside and must be regarded as true to safeguard his right guaranteed under the Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The job held by the appellant admittedly was of permanent nature which was served by him for more than three months as proved on record. He therefore could not be terminated without going under the obligations provided by law. He is therefore directed to be re-instated in service with in fifteen days with back benefits. The appeal is accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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