Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑790 of 1981/Pb., decided on 6th March, 1983.

Wage Commission Award‑

‑‑Paras. 234 & 258 (4) & (5)‑Nationalised Bank employee case -Negligence and misconduct‑Services terminated for un satisfactory performance‑Performance‑ Includes work as well as conduct Show‑cause notice and holding of enquiry, held, essential before passing such termination order‑Employee having completed proba tionary period termination even without allegation of misconduct, held, could be made with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof Termination Order, in circumstances, held, rightly struck down by t Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Malik Sarfraz Hussain for Appellant.

Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing :1st March, 1983.

In this appeal the decision dated 5‑11‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozawala has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The ground on which the respondent was terminated was that his performance was not satisfactory. No charge‑sheet was given and no enquiry was held. It was also not explained how his performance was not satis factory. Since the appellant is a commercial establishment and is a nationalised bank. Wage Commission Award applies to it. According to para. 258 (2), negligence and inefficiency both individually amount to mis conduct. Even otherwise performance includes work as well as conduct. Since there was allegation of misconduct, giving of show‑cause notice and holding of enquiry were necessary according to sub‑papas. (4) and (5) o A para. 258. Even if there had not been any allegation of misconduct, the order of termination was liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the respondent having successfully completed the probationary period could have been terminated under para. 234, according to which, giving of one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was a mandatory provision, which has not been complied with. So from whichever angle the case be viewed, the order of termination is not maintainable and thus was rightly struck down by the learned lower court.

3. As upshot of the observation made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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