Find a Lawyer

Case No. 411 of 1976, decided on 8th November, 1979.

-‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑.Grievance petition against termination of service Worker giving in writing that he can no longer continue his service‑‑Such writing inviting termination order‑‑Termination simplicitor, in circumstances, held, not illegal or wrong and petition rejected.

Date of institution: 13th September, 1976.

Shamsur Rehman has filed the present petition against P. T. 1. Jehangira through its Factory Manager under section 25‑A of the 1. R. 0., 1969.

The facts alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Cigerattes Mechanic Operator in the respondent establishment, on 15th February, 1968 and was transferred to the subsidiary establishment, Mardan Industries Ltd. There was an explosion on 30th March, 1974, in which the petitioner lost his right hand and the respondent establishment dispensed with the services of the petitioner on 6th June, 1974 without paying him full arrears on the ground that the petitioner had lost his hand. The petitioner made repeated representation and applications on humantarain ground for re‑employment to the higher echelons of the administration and consequently the petitioner was appointed in the M. I. L. subsidiary of the P. T. 1. as General Worker II Grade in the Scale F‑2 as permanent worker on 17th February, 1976. On termination of his employment the petitioner, after great efforts was able to receive some of his arrears due to respondent establishment on the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner disassociated himself from the Employees' Union of the respondent and joined the Workers Union and actually participated in the activities of the workers' union and tried to expose the Employees Union as a Pocket Union of the administration, Aggrieved the respondent establishment resorted to vindicativeness and removed the petitioner from his service through the Production Manager of M.I.L., the subsidiary establishment of the respondent establishment with effect from 26th June, 1976.

The written statement was filed on 9th October, 1976 in which various legal and factual pleas have been raised.

The first objection is to the effect that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action allegedly arose at Sakhakot. Secondly it has been averred that the petitioner had no cause of action as no secured or guaranteed rights of the petitioner have been infringed. The third objection is that the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to bring the present petition. The fourth objection was to the effect that Mr. Ziaullah Khan, could not represent the petitioner. However this objection has been decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Peshawar in favour of the petitioner. The fifth objection was that the petitioner was employee of M. I. L. Sakhakot which has been closed since 31^st August, 1976 with the permission of the Labour Court Swat. Lastly it has been alleged that the petitioner has received the amount of his group insurance from the respondent and as such he is estopped to file the present petition.

On factual side it has been mentioned in written statement that the petitioner was employee for M. I. L., Sakhakot which was on lease with the respondent establishment. The lease expired on 31st August, 1976 and the respondent has allegedly closed that establishment with the permission of the Labour Court, Swat. The petitioner was never employee of P. T. I. Jehangira but in fact he was recruited for and employed at M. 1. L., Sakhakot: The petitioner was never transferred by the respondent. In para. 3 of the written statement it has been conceded that the petitioner, was‑ re‑engaged as General Workers‑II on Ripping Machine with effect from 12th September, 1976. However it has not been mentioned that his re‑engagement was done by the respon dent. However since the claim made in the petition that the respondent establishment had ire‑engaged him, hence the omission in para. 3 of the written statement to deny this claim would go against the respondent establishment. In para. 4 of the written statement it has been asserted that the petitioner had received the amount, of Rs. 10,800 as Group Insurance for his total disableness. He had received this amount in presence of the Political Agent and has given in writing that he had no claim left on the respondent‑company and that he was totally disable person. This amount was paid to him on 30th April, 1976.

Evidence of the parties has been recorded, arguments heard and record perused.

The first appointment of the petitioner is proved to have been made by the respondent for M. 1. L., Sakhakot and the petitioner was posted there and be worked there as employee of the respondent establishment. The dispute is with respect to the second appointment after the petitioner became incapicitated. No doubt the second appointment letter is signed, on the Pad of M. 1. L. and is made by the Production Manager, M. I. L. but Exh. P. W. L/8 and Exh. P. W. 1/9 show the petitioner to be em ployee of P. T. I. as the P. T. 1. deducted money from his pay towards different funds. This position is admitted by the respondent in the statement of Mr. M. A. K. Yousafi who has categorically stated that the petitioner was employee of the P. T. I. Moreover the Labour Appellate Tribunal has also referred to the petitioner as employee of the respondent establishment in the judgment placed on file. Thus the petitioner was an employee of the respondent establishment. Now we have to see whether the impugned order was properly passel or not. In this connection Exh. P. X./2 read with Exh. D. X/l are important documents. In Exh. D. X./1 dated 25th January, 1976, the petitioner has sought the insurance amount and other amount due to the respondent establishment and has offered to give‑up his service whereas in receipt Exh. D. X. /2 he has categorically stated that he can no longer continue his service .with the company. The impugned order Exh. P. W. L/6 refers to this statement made in Exh. D. X./2. The impugned order reads as follows :‑

"As per your own contention recorded on the receipt of a sum of Rs. 10,800 (being the payment of Group Insurance claim) that you can no longer continue your service with the company, being per manently disabled your services are hereby terminated with effect from 26th June, 1976."

Thus the impugned order is passed on the offer and categorical admis sion by the petitioner in his statement in Exh. D. X./2 to the effect that he can no longer work with the respondent‑company. The offer made in A Exh. D. X./2 invite the impugned order. It is an order of simple termi nation and nothing is legally wrong with it and it was invited by the petitioner himself.

Thus under the circumstance there is no force in the petition and the petition is accordingly rejected.

A. E. Petition rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.