Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. IG‑391 of 1981/Pb., decided on 13th December, 1982.

‑‑ S. O. 12 (I)‑Termination of service of permanent workman Service of notice of one month or payment of one month's pay in lieu thereof‑Mandatory requirement‑Labour Court while dismiss ing grievance petition missing to see that service of notice not pro ved‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside order of Labour Court‑No proof that any junior retained‑Re‑instatement, in circumstances; awarded by Appellate Tribunal without back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Sayed Sajjad Hussain for Respondent.

The facts giving rise to this appeal brought against the decision, dated 3rd June, 1981 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad are that the appellant was recruited as conductor at Lahore on 23rd August, 1979. He was thereafter transferred to Jhang on his application D‑1 and was placed junior to all of the conductors already working there. His services were terminated vide order, dated 24th March, 1980 on the ground of retrenchment. He has challenged the order on the ground that no termination notice was served upon him before ter mination and that his juniors were retained in service.

2. Since there was no allegation of misconduct against him, service of notice was not necessary. Notice of termination is P. 4. The actual order of termination was not produced in evidence. Even service of P‑4 upon the appellant was not proved. The appellant was a permanent employee so service of one month notice of termination or offer of one month pay in lieu of notice was necessary. On account of the absence of service of one month's notice the order of termination is illegal. D.W‑l stated. that he had no document to prove the service of notice. This i noteworthy that P‑4 does not bear the signature of the appellant in token of service of the notice. The lower Court missed to see that the service of notice of termination was not proved. The provision of Standing Orders Ordinance 12(1) are mandatory but they were not followed. The order of termination therefore is illegal.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no rule that an employee who is transferred on his own request will rank junior in the transferee department. He also says that the instruc tions were issued by the Managing Director who was not competent. The instructions are not of the Managing Director but in the title reference is made to the said instruction so they were issued under the authority of the Board.

4. As upshot of the observation made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the order of termination and the impugned order of the learned lower Court direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. The appellant failed to prove that any of his juniors was retained so ha succeeded on technical ground only so is not entitled to back benefits.

A. E. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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