Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑259 of 1983, decided on 21st December, 1983.

‑‑ S. O. 1‑Probation‑Period contrary to that prescribed under S. O. 1‑Illegal.‑Workman completing three months‑Post con tinuing ‑ Workman, in circumstances, held, became permanent notwithstanding two years' probation period mentioned in appoint ment order.

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

‑‑ S. O. 15(4)‑Calling explanation with direction to show cause why proper action be not taken‑Amounts to service of charge‑sheet-- No enquiry held after calling explanation‑Dismissal order; in cir cumstances, held, not sustainable.

S. M. Arif for Appellant.

Abdul Qadeer for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th December, 1983.

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 25th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad again dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant after the case was remanded by this Tribunal for decision after bringing on the record seniority list and deciding if any junior to the appellant was retained in service.

2. The appellant was employed in August, 1978 on the condition of two years probation. The post was said to be temporary. In September, 1979 he was suspended as in answers given by him to question put to him during inspection revealed that he had no information about his area, On 21st October, 1979 his explanation was called why proper action be not taken against him for the preparation of full month's pay bill of Muhammad Akram. whereas the said employee bad worked for two days only. His services were terminated on account of economy cut.

3. The seniority list Exh. P.6 was brought on the record after the case was remanded and the learned lower Court has admitted that juniors to the appellant have been retained in service but says that since within the probationary period of two years, he was terminated and his work was not satisfactory, his seniority does not count. He also says that calling of explanation does not amount to charge‑sheeting. The learned lower Court has failed to consider that probationary period is only three months according to Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and not two years. Any term and condition of service against the statutory provisions is illegal and thus has no legal effect. A post likely to last for nine months or more is a permanent post and the incumbent working on the said post becomes permanent on completing successfully three months service. This is noteworthy that no objection was raised in the written statement that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable. The said Ordinance applies to all industrial and commercial establishments wherein twenty or more workers are employed. Proviso to section 1(4)(c), however, says that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 shall not apply to the establishments run by or under the' authority of Federal or any Pro vincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable. Since no objection regarding the applicability of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was raised, it means that according to the res pondent, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. So, the period of probation was only three months which the appellant had long before his termination completed as he was terminated after one year of his appoint ment. Since the post lasted for more than nine months as it exists even now as stated by R. W.‑1, it is a permanent post. So, the rule of first come last go envisaged by Standing Order 13 was to be necessarily follow ed. The termination in reality is an order of dismissal, inasmuch as the allegation of misconduct was laid against the appellant that was that he caused wrongful gain to one Muhammad Akram and wrongful loss to the respondent, by preparing the said employees pay bill for full one month, whereas he had worked for two days only in the said month. Charge‑sheet was not given but without holding any enquiry, the appellant was in the gar of termination dismissed. This is wrong that the charge‑sheet was no given. There is no special form of charge‑sheet. Calling of explanation with a direction to show cause why proper action be not taken is a charge sheet for all legal purposes.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. As the case has been delayed due to the fact that the learned lower Court twice decided the case wrongly, I allow only 50% back benefits to the appellant.

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.