Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑261 of 1982/Pb., decided on 21st March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

--‑‑Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i)‑Chowkidar seeking redress against wrongful termination of service without show‑cause notice and without assigning reasons- Appointment made for specified period but services terminated when post continued to exist ‑ "Chowkidar" though not a "Workman" under West Pakistan Industrial and ,Commercial Employment (Standing Orders). Ordinance, 1968, held, covered by definition of "workman" under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑ Grievance petition accepted and petitioner appellant, held, entitled to remain in service till post continued to exist and date of its abolition‑Services no longer required‑No sufficient reason for termination of service.

Muhammad Latif Bhatti for Appellant.

M. Z.man Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 5‑4‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was employed as a Chowkidar for three months on 26‑9‑1978 vide order Exh. R‑3. The period was extended up to 31‑5‑1979 and the post was abolished on 26‑11‑1979 vide telegram Exh. R‑5. The services of the appellant were terminated on 12‑7‑1979 as no longer required with effect from 24‑4‑1979, the date of his continuous absence. The appellant had preferred departmental appeal on 26‑10‑1979 (Exh. P‑6) which was not replied. It has been argued by the ‑ learned counsel for the appellant that grievance notice was not time barred as the appeal was not replied. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has argued that the appeal was preferred against a different letter. The argument is without force. The appeal obviously was against the appellant's termination and it made no difference if he made reference to same letter in the appeal. The appellant had to wait for the decision of the appeal and when no reply came for a considerable period, he rightly gave grievance notice on 16‑2‑1980. It was not, in these circumstances, time‑barred.

3. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 admittedly does not apply, it cannot be said that the appellant is not a workman. So far as Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, he is covered by the definition . The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is also without force that the appellant having been employed for a fixed period was not entitled to show‑cause notice and enquiry. Since before the expiry of the A term of service, he was terminated, show‑cause notice at least was necessary. The order of termination does not contain sufficient reasons. "No longer required'' is not a sufficient reason when the post existed. He could be legally terminated ‑ on. 26‑11‑1979 when the post was abolished.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugne4 decision of the learned lower Court, declare that the appellant was entitled to remain in service up to 26‑11‑1979 and thus is entitled to his wages till then which should be paid to him within one month.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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