Find a Lawyer

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. O. 12 (3)‑Termination of service‑Order in writing with explicit reasons‑Requirement‑Applicable to temporary workman also.

Sadiq Ansari for Appellant.

Kirpal Das for Respondent.

Date of heating : 9th April..1983.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, Sukkur, given on 7th December, 1982, dismissing the grievance petition preferred by the appellant against the termination of his services on the ground that the appellant was a temporary worker and no notice under law was required to be given to him.

2. The appellant in his grievance petition, which was preferred on 7th June, 1982, has claimed that be was working as a Beldar under the supervision of the Executive Engineer, Bagari Sind Feeder Division, Kashmore, since 6/7 years but suddenly, on 4th May, 1982, his services were verbally and unauthorisedly terminated and instead one Makhn o, who is junior to him, has been appointed in his place. The respondent resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the appellant was appointed on work‑charge establishment and he actually worked from 1st October, 1981 to 31st December, 1981. It was denied that Makhno was junior to the appellant and on the other hand it was claimed that the said Makhno was senior to the appellant. ‑The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that it has not been established by the appellant that he bad been in the service of the respondent Executive Engineer since 6/7 years as claimed by him in his grievance petition and further as he was a temporary workman he was not entitled to a notice for the‑ termination of his services.

3. I have heard Mr. Sadiq Ansari, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Kirpal Das who appeared for the respondent Executive Engineer.

4. In his application, dated 27th September, 1981 to the Chief Engineer, Guddu Barrage, the appellant has stated that. he has been working in the work‑charged establishment for the Abkalani season for the past 3 years and that in fact he had been promised to be confirmed but his services had been suddenly terminated. He accordingly prayed that he should be employed because of his past experience. On his application, the Chief Engineer has made an endorsement directing the Executive Engineer, Bagari Sind Feeder Division, that if the appellant (applicant) is. good at his work, he may be allowed to work on work charge basis in the existing vacancy. In pursuance of this direction, the Sub‑Engineer, Choi, wrote to the Assistant Engineer, Ghouspur, intimating that with effect from 1st October, 1981, the appellant, is engaged as Beldar on the Gbouspur Minor and this arrangement has been verbally approved by the Executive Engineer, Begari Sind Feeder Division, on 4th October, 1981 at Tori. It was also stated in the said letter of the Sub‑Engineer that the appellant was hard working as proved in the last Abkalani season when he was engaged as Katcha Beldar on Ghouspur Minor. It will thus appear from the said letter of the Sub‑Engineer that the appellant had worked in the Abkalani season of 1981 as well as in the previous season of 1980. This, however, does not make the appellant a permanent workman unless it is shown that a permanent vacancy of Beldar existed or a Beldar junior to him had been confirmed in a permanent vacancy. It is claimed by the appellant that Makhano who has been appointed in his place is junior to him but no evidence has been led by the appellant to establish his claim. The respondents have denied that Makhano is junior to the appellant and have, on the contrary, alleged that he is senior to the appellant. Since it was the appellant who claimed that Makhano was junior to him, the burden was on him to establish that Makhano was in fact junior to him which burden he failed to discharge.

5. There is, however, another aspect of the case, sub‑clause (3) off Standing Order 12 provides that the services of a workman shall not be ,q terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reasons for the termination of services. This clause is applicable to permanent as well as temporary workers, as unlike clause (1) of Standing Order 12 its application is not restricted to permanent workman. No doubt, clause (2) of Standing Order 12 provides that no probationer or badli worker shall be entitled to any notice if his services are terminated by an employer, or any wages in lieu thereof, but the provisions of this clause relating to notice must be read in conjunction with the provisions of clause (1) of Standing Order 12 which requires that for terminating the services of a permanent workman either notice of one month or pay in lieu of notice shall be given to him. The provisions of clause (2) of Standing Order 12 relating to non‑requirement of notice do not override the pro visions of clause (3) of said Standing Order or do away with the condition that for terminating the service of any worker the order is to be in writing and in .the order itself explicit reasons for the termina tion of services are to be stated. In the instant case admittedly the services of the appellant have been terminated on verbal orders and further no grounds for the termination of services have been stated. The requirements of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 are mandatory as the services of no workman can be terminated unless the twin require ments of that clause have not been complied with. Since the requirement of that clause have not been complied with in the instant case, the termina tion of services. of the appellant is deemed to be invalid and contrary to the provision of the law. The appellant is, therefore, deemed to have continued in the service of the P. W. D. during the Abkalani season of 1982 and he will be entitled to full wages for the said Abkalani season from 4th May, 1982 when his services were terminated in contravention of clause (3) of Standing Order 12. As regards the Abkalani season of 1983. apart from the fact that it has not yet commenced it is for the authorities to consider him for appointment in accordance with the rules governing the recruitment of work‑charged establishment" subject to the fact that no person junior to him should be confirmed ignoring his claim.

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.