Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑611 of 1982, decided on 21st December, 1983.

‑‑ S. O. 12 (3) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Termination of service ‑ Post existing for 60 days‑Appointment made for 60 days ‑ Services terminated on expiry of period by written order stating that "no longer required"‑Workman, in circumstances, held, had no guaranteed right and termination order, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement set aside by Appellate Tribunal.

K. M. Pasha for Appellant.

Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th December, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 26th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was employed as Assistant Turner, with effect from 10th May, 1982, vide order, dated 13th May, 1982 for sixty days. His services were terminated on 8th July, 1982 on the ground that they were no longer required. The respondent claims that he was employed on 8th March, 1982. He, however, did not cause to be produced atten dance and pay registers against the appointment order, on which he admitted his signatures at A‑1. He said that a junior person had been appointed in his place but could not give the name of that person in cross- examination. His assertion is obviously false. The post was for 60 days and within the said period the respondent was terminated. There is no evidence that the post was to last for more than nine months. So, it was not a permanent post. The respondent had thus no guaranteed right. The learned lower Court erred in holding that the post existed. This is not believable that the respondent did not care to know the name of his opponent who bad taken his place. If in reality any one had been appoin ted, in his place, he would have given his name. The order of termination is in writing and the reason given is no longer required. This reason in view of the fact that it was for 60 days, is sufficient. So, the provisions of Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance,) 1968 were duly complied with and the order of termination does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.

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.