Find a Lawyer

Case No. 18 (109) of 1975, decided on 25th June 1975.

‑‑ Ss. 3 &, 6 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15-- Termination of services‑Employer stating that it was a case of termi nation simpliciter but termination letter mentioning that workman was guilty of misconduct‑Such termination of services without holding proper enquiry, held, highly unreasonable and against principles of natural justice‑Workman re‑instated with back benefits.

This is an application under section 6 of the Essential Services Act filed by one Muhammad Akbar, an employee of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (the respondent) which has been declared under section 3 of the said Act to be an employment to which the said Act applies.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was a permanent workman of the respondent. He was employed as skilled Welder in April 1966. He was later promoted as a highly skilled Welder in the year 1970. The petitioner received a letter on 25th July 1974 informing him that his services had been terminated with effect from 21st March 1974, on the ground that the petitioner had remained absent from duty without leave for a period extending ten days which amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The petitioner has contended that the said order is illegal as the respondent had failed to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner before terminating his services as required by the law. The respondent in its written comments has admitted the petitioner's contention that no enquiry was held against him but at the same time has advanced a plea that it was a case of termination simpliciter.

3. Mr. Nizam Ali Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a letter (Annex. J') whereby the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the respondent. In this letter it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct for which his services had been terminated. This obviously refutes the plea taken by the respondent that it was purely a case of termination simpliciter.

4. Under these circumstances, I find the action of the respondent highly unreasonable because even if the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable the principles of natural justice required holding of a proper enquiry against the petitioner. I therefore direct that the petitioner be re instated in service with all the back benefits.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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