Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑115 of 1982, decided on 13th May, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Grievance petition against termination of service on account of retrenchment‑Date of appointment of petitioner material for decision‑Point not receiving sufficient consideration by Labour Court‑Case remanded for decision afresh after opportunity of evi dence to parties.

Wahid Bux for Appellant.

Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondent

Date of hearing : 13th May, 1982.

The appellant, who was employed as a bus conductor in the S.R.T.C. in the Sanghar District, was retrenched from service by an order, dated 26‑5‑1980. Earlier, on 31‑1‑1980, a number of bus conductors had been retrenched from service on the ground of being surplus to the requirement of the S. R. T. C. Aggrieved by this retrenchment order, the appellant preferred a grievance petition to the learned Vlth Labour Court at Hyderabad. His grievance petition was heard with the grievance petitions of some other bus conductors whose services had been terminated in January, 1980. The learned Labour Court, by a short order, dated 15‑2‑1982, dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for the detailed reasons given by him in his Order of the same date to the case of Shaukat Ali v, District Manager: S.R.T.C. The main ground on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition is that the retrenchment effected by the S.R.T.C. was justified on account of the continued losses suffered by it and that it had not been established that while retrenching the services of the appellant any person junior to him was retained as bus conductor. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up to this Tribunal in appeal.

2. V The main contention of Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned Representative of the appellant, is that the services of only those bus conductors have been retrenched who were appointed after 1965, while the appellant is an employee of 1960. In support of his contention that the appellant is an employee of 1960, Mr. Wahid Bux has relied upon (1) the identity card of the appellant issued by the S.R.T C., (2) the Certificate of Service of the appellant issued by the District Manager S. R. T. C., Nawabshah (3) the Certificate of Service of the appellant issued by the Divisional Manager S. R. T. C., and (4) the Certificate of Service of the appellant issued by the District Manager, S. R. T. C., Sanghar. In the identity card as well as in all these 3 Certificates the year of entry of service of the appellant is shown as 1960. Mr. Wahid Bux claims that additionally he has other tangible evidence, which has come to his possession now, to indicate that the appel lant is an appointee of 1960. On the other hand, it was strongly contended by Mr. Raes Mohammad Mushtaq. the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, that the appellant is an employee of 1969. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has produced a cyclostyled copy of the order, dated 27‑1‑1969. By that order., 25 persons on the waiting List were appointed as bus conductors. the name at serial No. le of that order is of Nooruz Zaman Khan s/o Hameed‑,uz‑Zaman Khan. which is identical to the name of the appellant and his father. This office order, however, was not produced before the learned Labour Court and hence it cannot be taken into consideration by me at this stage. On the other hand, the appellant himself. neither in his grievance petition nor in his grievance notice indicate the date or the year of his appointment. Even in his evidence before the learned Labour Court, he did .not state in what year or on what date he was ap pointed. Since the real controversy in this case centres on the point from what date the appellant was appointed in the S. R. T. C. and as this issue does not appear to have received sufficient consideration by the learned Labour Court and further as it appears likely that the respondent Corpora tion was handicapped and was misled in its defence on account of the failure on the part of the appellant to state the date or the year of his entry in the services of S.R.T.C the only appropriate course, in the circumstances would be to remand the case to the learned Labour Court. I accordingly do so with the direction that an opportunity may be given to both parties to lead evidence on the issue of date entry into service of the appellant and on the basis of the evidence that may be brought on record by the parties, give a fresh finding and decision in the case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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