Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑597 of 1981, heard on 2nd December, 1981.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38‑‑Procedure‑Time for filing, written statement and affidavit on behalf of respondent‑Affidavit of witness filed‑Witness not attending on date fixed for his cross- examination without any intimation to Labour Court‑Affidavit in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court and con tention that Labour Court acted in undue haste rejected by Labour Appellate Tribunal.

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

‑‑ S. Os. 2‑A & 12 (3)‑‑‑Appointment‑Termination of work man‑Employment whether on daily wages or on weekly, or fortnightly or monthly remuneration‑To be made by written order‑Appointment ‑ order to show terms and condi tions of service‑‑Termination order to explicitly, state reasons‑Neither appointment order made in writing nor termination order issued in writing‑Appeal against Labour Court's order of re‑instatement, in circumstances, rejected and Director of. Labour Welfare asked by Labour Appellate Tribu nal to take appropriate legal action against employer for in fringement of provisions of S.0.2‑A and 12 (3)‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Abid Hussain for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 2nd December, 1981.

This appeal by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation is directed against the decision given by the learned IVth Labour Court on 21st September, 1981, setting aside the order of termination of services of respondent Bashir Ahmed and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits within 7 days. This decision was given on the grie vance petition filed by the respondent wherein he had stated that he was taken in employment as a cook by the P. I. A. in June, 1978 in the main canteen at the Karachi Airport, that after 3 months of working in the main canteen, he was transferred to the dining hall where he worked till April, 1979 that thereafter he was transferred to the canteen of the New Engine Overhaul Section where he worked uptil 29th January, 1981, and that at the close of the said date, he was orally informed by Mr. Tawakkul Hussain, Officer Incharge of the Canteens that his services were terminated.

2. Before the learned Labour Court, the respondent filed his affidavit in support of his grievance petition and he was duly cross -examined by the appellant corporation. On behalf of the appellant corporation affidavit was filed of witness Tawakkul Hussain, Officer Incharge of the Canteens at Karachi, but as he failed to attend the Court when the matter was fixed for his cross‑examination, his affidavit was struck off the record, with the result that there is a no evidence in rebuttal by the appellant corporation. On the basis of the evidence of the respondent, which stood un-controverted, the learned Labour Court held that the services of the respondent were illegally ter minated by the appellant corporation on 29th January, 1981.

3. Mr. Abid Hussain the learned counsel for the appellant cor poration has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 2 grounds. His first ground of attack was that no opportunity was given to the appellant corporation of defending the grievance petition filed by the respondent. This contention was based on the fact that the affidavit filed by the appellant corporation's witness Tawakkul Hussain was struck off the record on 17th September, 1981 as he failed to present himself for cross‑examination. It was sub mitted by Mr. Abid Hussain that witness Tawakkul Hussain was unable to attend the Court of the learned IVth Labour Court on 17th September, 1981 by reason of unavoidable circumstances. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the witness was unable, due to circumstances beyond his control or unavoidable circumstances, from appearing before the Court for the purposes of cross‑examination. It was admitted by Mr. Abid Hussain that no intimation was given by witness Tawakkul Hussain, either to the learned Labour Court or to him to the effect that he was unable to attend the Court. In the circumstances the learned Court rightly struck off the affidavit of witness Tawakkul Hussain. As the appellant corporation did not apply for leading any other evidence, the learned Labour Court rightly closed the side of the appellant corporation and fixed the case for argu ments, which were heard on 20th September, 1981. It is clear from the above circumstances that the appellant corporation was given full op portunity of defending the grievance petition filed by the respondent but it was entirely due to its negligence that no evidence was led on its behalf. The‑allegation of Mr. Abid Hussain Advocate that the learned Labour Court acted in undue haste is belied by the fact that not only had the learned Labour Court, on the application of Mr. Abid Hussain, extended the period for filing the written statement by the appellant corporation, but had also extended the time for filing the affidavit of witness Tawakkul Hussain, as appears from the orders, dated 2nd July, 1981 and 20th August, 1981, made on the applications filed by Mr. Abid Hussain.

4. The second ground on which Mr. Abid Hussain sought to assail the decision of the learned Labour Court was that the grievance petition was hopelessly time barred. He contended that as the services of the respondent ware terminated on 18th September, 1980, while the grievance notice was served upon the appellant corporation on 14th March, 1981 and the grievance petition was flied on 26th May, 1981, both the grievance notice as well as the grievance petition were hopelessly time barred. There is, however, no evidence in support of Mr. Abid Hussain's contention that the services of the respondent were termi nated on 18th September, 1980. No doubt, in their reply statement, it has been asserted by the appellant corporation that the services of the res pondent were terminated on 18th September, 1980 and similarly in the affidavit of Tawakkul Hussain it is stated that the respondent's services were terminated on the aforesaid date, but as witness Tawakkul Hussain did not present himself for cross exa mination, neither his affidavit nor the reply statement of the appellant corporation, which was signed by Mr. Mahmood Alam, Manager, Legal Services of the appellant corporation, who was trot examined as a witness in the case, can be taken into consideration. On the other hand, there is the sworn testimony of the respondent that his services were terminated on 29th January, 1981. No doubt, the res pondent was unable to produce any documentary evidence to show that he worked in the P I A after 19th September, 1980, but in view of the fact that his services were orally terminated in contravention of the provisions of the Standing Orders, and further no evidence has been led in rebuttal by the appellant corporation, his failure to adduce such evidence is immaterial.

5. It appears that the officers of the Pakistan International Airlines are under the mistaken impression that because a person is employed on daily wages, the Standing Orders are not applicable to him and neither any letter of appointment is required to be given to him nor any letter of termination of services. The law, however, requires that every workman, as defined in the Sind Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, whether he is employed on daily wages or on weekly, fortnightly or monthly remuneration, is required to be provided at the time of his appointment with an order in writing showing the terms and conditions of his services, and at the time of termination of his services, with an order in writing which order should explicitly state the reason for the action taken. Furthermore, if such workman is a permanent workmen, he is required to be given one month's notice of termination of service or wages in lieu of notice. It is an admitted position that neither any letter of appointment was given by the ap pellant corporation to the respondent nor was he given any order in writing terminating his services. The appellant corporation thus appear to have committed offences under Standing orders 2‑A and 12(3).

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine. A copy of this order should be sent to the Director, Labour Welfare, for taking appropriate legal action against the appellant corporation for infringement of provisions of Standing Orders 2‑A and 12(3).

Find a Lawyer Near You

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