Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GT‑460 of 1981, decided on 31st January, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Grievance petition of Railway workman against termination of service‑Resisted on grounds that workman was appointed on work‑charged basis and there was no work‑Petition dismissed by Labour Court‑Record indicating that appointment was made initially against leave vacancy but continued for more than three years‑No indication that there existed no vacancy and no written order for termination of service made‑Termination, in , circumstances, held, illegal and uncalled for‑Order of Labour Court set aside and reinstatement with back benefits awarded by Appellate Tribunal.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant,

Syed Intisar Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th January, 1983.

. .

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 15th July, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No 7, Gujranwala, Camp at Gujrat, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was initially appointed on temporary basis against leave vacancy but his service of more than three years remained conti nuous. It is proved by the evidence of P. W.‑I who is an employee of the respondent that against the extension of T. L. A. no cooly or painter was appointed. He also stated that according to the said T. L. A. one vacancy of painter exists at Lalamusa. It is thus clear that there is no force in the contention that the services of the appellant were terminated as there was no vacancy. Instead of being terminated, he should have been absorbed against the existing vacancy of painter at Lalamusa. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant was work charged. No such record of work charged is maintained nor he is entitled to any leave or other facility nor he can be appointed against any leave vacancy. The very appointment in leave vacancy shows that he was not employed on work charged basis. The documents Exhs. R‑1 to R‑10 cannot be read in evidence, because the evidence of the witness who proved them namely R. W.‑1 was cancelled by the lower Court. The witness has appeared as P. W.‑1, so everything should have been enquired from him and documents proved in cross -examination. Moreover, no opportunit of cross‑examination upon R. W.‑1 was afforded as the statement was cancelled. For this reason also the statement cannot be read in evidence. Even otherwise the documents R. 1 to R. 10 do not relate to the appellant as his name is nowhere recorded in them.

3. Written order of termination even for a temporary employee is necessary. In the present case no written order was recorded. The termination of the appellant was, ,therefore, on, the above‑mentioned grounds illegal and uncalled for.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the verbal order of termination, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service with 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.