Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.Lhr-916/78, decided on 20th July, 1982.

---S.0.12(3)--Termination of temporary work-charged employees without written orders, held, illegal--Services can be terminated only by a written order cont n ng explicit reasons for termination.

198 P L C 436 rel. Ch. Inayat Ullah for Appellants.

Aqa Asaf Jaffary for Respondents..

Date of hearing: 13th July, 1982.

This appeal arises from the, decision dated 27-8-1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the respondents were ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondents were employed as temporary workers on work charged basis by the appellants. Their services were terminated on 22-10-1977 on the ground that they were no longer required. The respondents challenged the orders in an application under section 25-A on the ground that the order was mala fide. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the respondents were employed purely on temporary basis against a specific work on the end of which their services were rightly terminated. However, no order in writing was passed. Their services were terminated verbally. The appeal brought to this Tribunal by the appellants was accepted on short ground that the grievance petition had been brought before the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of grievance notice. The respondents went in writ petition, which has been accepted and the appeal has been remanded for decision on merits. It has been held by the High Court that the petition was not premature.

3. The case is quite simple that the order of termination was passed in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the respondents were employed for a particular work, they not being permanent employees, it was not necessary to record any order of termination in writing. Clause (3) of Standing Order 12 does not differentiate between permanent, temporary or work-charged workers. It applies to every kind of worker and the requirement is that the services can be terminated only by a written order which should contain explicit reasons for termination. In the present case as no written order was passed, it was rightly struck down by the learned lower court. Same kind of view was taken in 1982 P L C 436. It was observed in the said authority:-

The law, however, requires that every workman as defined in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 whether he is employed on daily wages or on weekly, fortnightly or monthly remuneration, is required to be provided at the time of his appointment with an order in writing showing the terms and conditions of his services and at the time of termination of his services, with an order in writing which order should explicitly state the reasons for the action taken."

The learned trial Judge was justified in_ ordering the re-instatement of the respondents in service with back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. I.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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