Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN-1088 of 1978, decided on 7^th July, 1982.

---S.O. 12--Services of 'badli' employee terminated as 'no longer required'--Appointment/termination order did not show in whose place appellant was appointed and whether that worker had resumed duty- Held: Reason for termination was not sufficient--Actual reason for which services were terminated should have been disclosed--Order of termination set aside as being without any cogent reason.

M. S. Bokhari for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 22‑11‑1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was employed on 16‑4‑1978 as badli Rooler and on 24‑7‑1978 his services were terminated as no longer required. The stand taken by the respondent in his grievance petition was that he had applied for being made permanent, therefore he was terminated. He admitted firstly that he had remained absent on 1st and 2nd May, 1978 but took a somersault and said that he did not remain absent on those days. However, in cross‑examination he admitted that for the wage period from 16‑4‑1978 to 15‑5‑1978 he had received the pay of 24 days instead of 26 days, meaning that he had remained absent on two days and was not paid salary of the days on which he had remained absent. Since according to him, he asked for being made permanent, his services were terminated. It is clear that he was not in the beginning employed against my permanent vacancy 3s the case of the appellant that the respondent was only a badli appears to be correct. However, Mr. Mohammad Zahoor‑ul‑Hassan, Assistant Labour Officer, who was examined by the appellant, could not say in whose place the respondent was posted as badli and whether any other person was appointed in the vacancy of the respondent. A badli is always appointed in the temporary vacancy of an employee, who is for some reasons absent either on leave or otherwise and when that person comes back and resumes duty, the badli worker appointed in his place has to go out. In the present case although it was contended by the appellant that the respondent was appointed as badli, but it was not shown in whose place he was appointed and whether that worker had resumed duty and for this reason the respondent was removed from service. The order of termination would have suggested the name of the person in whose place the respondent was appointed and that the said employee had resumed duty and, therefore the respondent was terminated, but the order does not say so and instead given the reason of termination that the services of the respondent were no longer required. This was not a sufficient reason for the termination. It should have been disclosed what was the actual reason for which his services were being terminated. Even in the appointment order it is not mentioned in whose p ace the respondent was appointed. Since the termination of the respondent was without any cogent reason, the order was not maintainable and was rightly struck down by the learned trial Judge. But, however, this does not stand proved that the respondent was employed against any permanent vacancy.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it ex parte.

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.