Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑761 of 1981, decided on 20th January, 1982.

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑----

‑‑---S. O. 12(3)‑Termination of service Written order, given reasons‑Requirement‑Equally applicable to probationer‑Order not containing reasons‑Not sustainable.

1978 P L C 466 ; 1983 P L C 812 and 1976 P L C 181 held not relevant.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑---

‑‑----S. 2(i) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 2 (xxviii)‑‑"Workman"‑Overseer employed in Road Transport Board‑Performing manual duty of making measurements and clerical duty of maintaining record of measurements‑and material used on construction works and preparing planes‑Pay less than Rs. 800 and no power of hire and fire‑‑A workman under both Ordinances‑Mere supervision of work of masons by him, held, would not oust him from definition of workman.

Muhammad Salim Khan for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 10th January, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 18th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was appointed as Overseer vide order Exh. R. 1, dated 14th April, 1981. His services were terminated, on 23rd June, 1981 vide termination order Exh. P. 1, which states only this much that the services of Mr. Muhammad Fazal Hussain, Overseer, G.T.S., Sialkot, are hereby terminated within probation with immediate effect. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the lower Court after serving a grievance notice. The petition was opposed and it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent was not a workman and that since his services were terminated during the pro bationary period, it was not necessary to serve any notice of termina tion. The lower Court held that the respondent was covered by the definition of workman and that since no notice for termination and reason was given, the order of termination was not sustainable.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since with in the probationary period the services of the respondent were terminated, the case is covered by Standing Order 12(2) and that Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. On the point that the respondent is a workman, he has argued that the finding of the lower Court is not supported by any evidence. So far as the first point is con cerned, learned counsel that upon 1978 P L C 466, 1983 P L C 812 and 1976 P L C 181. The question involved in 1978 P L C 466 and 1976 P L C 181 was not whether making order in writing giving reasons for the termination of the services of a probationer was or was not necessary. It was held that notice before termination was not necessary, meaning that compliance with the provisions of Standing Order 12(1) was not necessary. Standing Order 12(3) clearly says that the service of no workman can be terminated, nor he can be dismissed without an order in writing giving reasons. It is not mentioned that this clause does not include the case of a probationer, nor it is mentioned that a probationer will not be considered as a workman. 1983 P L C 812 is also not help ful to the appellant, inasmuch as no such view was taken in this authority that making of an order in writing giving reasons for the termination of the services of a probationer is not necessary. If reasons had been given, the same could have been considered by the lower Court and this Court to see whether the said reasons were or were not sufficient for the termination of the services. The lower Court, therefore, rightly held that the order of termination was not sustainable.

4. The duties‑of the respondent were not only to supervise the work of Masons, but he had to make measurements. The respondent also stated that he had been preparing planes of the buildings. The material to be used for the construction of the buildings is also to be supplied by the Overseers and they had to maintain the record of the same. On completion of the buildings the work is checked and report is sent to the effect whether the construction was according to the proposed scheme and standard. It is thus clear that the main duty of the Overseer manual and clerical. Manual in the sense that they have to personal) make measurements and clerical because they have to maintain the record of measurements and the material used on the construction of the build ings and to prepare planes. They supervise the work of the Masons also, but simply for this reason they cannot be ousted from the definition of workman when according to their manual and clerical work, they are covered by the said defintition. So far as the definition given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, there is no evidence that the Overseers have the powers of hire and fire or that in any manner they are covered by the definition of employer. According to the evidence, the pay of the respondent was less than Rs. 800. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the main duty of the respondent was to supervise the Masons. I, therefore, held that the learned lower Court rightly observed that the respondent was covered by the definition of workman.

5. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.

A. B. 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.