Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. AR-113 of 1979, decided on 21st June, 1982.

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

--- S. O. 12 (3)-Re-instatement-Termination order not disclosing wrong with old and new service record of appellant-Such order, held, violative of provisions of S. O. 12 (3) requiring explicit reasons to be recorded in such order-Such order, held further, nor valid and set aside-Appellant re-instated.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15^th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 9th January, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that although he was receiving emergency allowance of Rs. 10 per mensem, yet he refused to give emergency duty and worked for eight hours daily only. He was charge-sheeted in 1975 and an enquiry was held against him. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty. Thereafter, no action was taken for about two years and then an order of termination was issued giving the reasons that his services were being terminated upon his previous and subsequent ,service record:

3. There is no reference in the order of termination about the miscon duct alleged to have been committed by him for refusing to give emergency duty. If the order Of termination had been passed on account of the enquiry held against him in 1975, in the order of termination it would have been mentioned that he was found guilty in two said enquiry and pursuant to the said enquiry his services were being terminated. It appears that without the service of any subsequent charge-sheet and without making any enquiry, his services were terminated on the payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice and when the appellant challenged the order in the lower Court, the old enquiry was reopened and produced before the Court to show that the appellant was duly charge-sheeted and was terminated after holding au enquiry. Either no action was taken and the matter was dropped, or a lenient view may have been taken on the previous charge -sheet and the enquiry. In the termination order it has not been disclose what is wrong with the old and new service record of the appellant. The order of termination, therefore, violates the provisions of Standing order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, which states that the order of termination must give explicit reasons for the action taken.

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 order of termination of the services of the appellant, direct his reinstate ment in service. But in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellant is not allowed back benefits.

M. Y. M.

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.