Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑797 of 1979/Pb., decided on 16th June, 1982.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. O. 12 (3)‑Termination of service‑Reason essentially to be mentioned in written order‑Nature of employment temporary or work‑charge-- Not material‑Work‑charge workman‑Services terminated‑Order not mentioning reasons‑Not‑ sustainable‑Re‑instatement awarded-- Matter remaining pending before Labour Court and Appellate Tribu nal for long period‑Back benefits limited to 50%‑Industrial Rela tions Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

M. A. Hamid Awan for Appellant.

Naeem Bokhari for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 15‑11‑1979 passed by the learned Pre3iding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Lahore at Fero zewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was appointed as helper on 1‑3‑1978. 'On 11‑7‑78 his services were terminated. The case of the appellant is that orally his services were terminated and no order in writing was passed. The order of termination is on the lower Court file but the same was not tendered in evidence as there is no exhibit mark on it. Even if it be said that this is a termination order, it does not satisfy the ingredients of Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, inasmuch as no ground of termination is given. The order reads as under :‑

" Your services as helper (daily wages) are hereby terminated with immediate effect."

It is apparent that no ground of termination is given. 1t has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that no notice is required for terminating the services of a temporary or work‑charged employees. No doubt notice is not necessary but Standing Order 12 (3) says something else, which is that the order should be in writing and that it should give explicit reasons for termination. The termination, therefore, was not legal.

I accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the Labour Court and the order of termination, direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. Since the matter remained pending for sufficient period in the lower Court as well as in this Court, the parties should not be made to suffer. 1, therefore, order that fifty per cent. back benefits be paid to the appellant.

Appeal 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.