Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑7 of 1983, heard on 10th March, 1983.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. 2 (i), S. Os. 1 & 12 (1) & (3)‑"Workman"‑Daily‑rated worker ‑ Covered by definition of workman‑Classification in S: O. 1 based upon nature of employment and not upon mode of payment‑Daily‑rated worker engaged on work of permanent nature likely .to last for more than 9 months ‑ Becomes permanent after satisfactorily completing probationary period of 3 months‑Termina tion of service of such worker without one month's notice or notice pay and without specific reasons in writing, held, not valid.

S. .M. Kohistani for Appellant.

Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for Respondent.

Date .of hearing : 10th March, 1983.

DECISION

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court, given on 20th December, 1982 dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman challenging the termination of his services by the respondent.

2. The case of the appellant is that he was a permanent workman of the respondent establishment since 19th September, 1982 being employed as a helper, 4yieg. He claims that on and after 6th February, 1982, ‑he was orally refused employment and his services had been illegally terminated. The appellant,' accordingly, preferred a . grievance petition before the learned Labour Court after serving the required grievance notice upon the respondent establishment. In the reply, dated 14th February, 1982 to the grievance 'notice of the appellant the respondent establishment stated that the. factory was shut down for maintenance and that there was a lay off. In the reply to the grievance notice, the manage ment further required the appellant to see the Manager of the respondents in connection with his notice.

3. Before the learned Labour Court the appellant examined himself and reiterated his claim that his ‑services had‑ been orally terminated on 6th February, 1982 without any reason or reasonable cause and without any notice or charge‑sheet. He was not cross‑examined as the respondents remained absent after filing of their reply statement. No evidence was led by the respondents 'in rebuttal.

4. The learned Labour Court has held that the reply statement of the respondents cannot be taken into, consideration or looked into as the respondents did not step into the box or lead any evidence. The learned Labour Court, however, dismissed. the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds that the appellant was a daily‑rated worker and further he had failed to appear before the Manager of the respondent mills, though he was directed to do so in the management's reply to the grievance notice. The term "workman" has been defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders). Ordinance, 1968, to mean any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward. The definition of. the term would cover piece‑rated, daily rated or monthly‑rated workers. Standing Order 1 lists five different classes of workmen, namely, permanent, probationers, badli, temporary and apprentices. The classification is based upon the nature of the employment and has no relation. to the mode of payment of the workmen. A daily‑rated worker thus, may become a permanent workman if he ha been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three months. Clause (3) of Standing Order 12 is applicable to all workman including daily‑rated workers. It provides that the services of a work man shall not be terminated except through an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. Furthermore, in 'the ease of termination of services of a permanent workmen, he is either to be given notice of one month or pay in lieu of notice as provided. in clause (1) of Standing Order 12. None of these requirements have been fulfilled in the instant case.

5. The second ground on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the workmen's grievance petition is that though he was required to see the Manager of the respondents as stated in the reply to the grie vance notice, dated 14th February, 1982 the appellant failed to do . so.. The learned Labour Court, however, has not taken note of paragraph 7 of the grievance petition of the appellant, wherein it is expressly stated ‑that the appellant, as per advice of the respondents mentioned in. their reply statement to his grievance notice, paid several visits to the respon dent factory but he was extended threats and on . the contrary his resignation was demanded. In his affidavit before‑the learned Labour Court the appellant asserted that the contents of his main application are .correct and that they should be treated as a part of his affidavit. ' There was thus, tangible evidence before the learned Labour Court to show that the appellant had complied with the directions of the respondents and paid several visits to the factory of the respondents but his grievance: was not redressed. There was no rebuttal of this evidence by the respondents as no evidence was led by them and the appellant was not cross‑examined Since the services of the appellant have been terminated in violation of the manadatory provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 ‑and further he has not been even paid notice pay or given a notice required under clause (1) of Standing Order 12 and as the termination of services of the appellant was without any cause or valid ground, the termination of services of the appellant cannot be held valid.‑ I would, according set aside the order terminating the services of the appellant and would direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service within seven days and also award him back benefits.

A.E. 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.