Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑176 of 1983, decided on 12th November, 1984.

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

‑‑‑S.O.15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service of permanent worker on account of unsatisfactory performance‑‑Amounts to dismissal‑‑Order passed without following procedure of 5.0.15‑‑Held, rightly declared as illegal by Labour Court.

1979 S C M R 304 ref.

Races Mushtaq for Appellant.

Ishaq Abbasi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12th November, 1984.

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Labour

Court No. VI, at Hyderabad, dated 30‑4‑1982. The learned Labour Court, however, accepted the grievance petition of the respondent ordered re‑instatement with back benefits.

2. The facts are that the respondent, Muhammad Aqal, was serving with the appellants as a Conductor. His services were terminated by an order of the appellants on the ground that his services during probation period were not satisfactory. Subsequently the grievance application was filed by Muhammad Aqal which was decided by the learned Labour Court.

3. In his grievance application the respondent stated that he was appointed on 15‑9‑1981 and had along before completed his period of probation and as such he was a permanent workman.

4. The stand taken by the appellants that the removal of the respondent from service took place during his probationary period. It denied the fact that the respondent was a permanent workman. During the course of evidence while it was admitted that he was appointed on 15‑9‑1981, but suddenly the counsel of the appellants stated that he was removed and re‑appointed on 15‑3‑1982. The Labour Court examined this position and came to the conclusion that there is no documentary evidence to prove the removal from service after his appointment on 15‑9‑1981. It was not satisfactorily proved that he was re‑appointed before his removal. Briefly, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove that the respondent's services do not continue from 15‑9‑1981. Thus the removal of the respondent on the ground of unsatisfactory services necessitates enquiry under Standing Order 15, I am referred to 1979 S C M R 304 that the termination of the service on account of unsatisfactory performance amounts of dismissal within the meaning of Standing Order 15 and as such dismissal in the form of termination is illegal. Unsatisfactory service carries a stigma and it shall follow the procedure contained in the Standing Order 15.

5. Briefly, the contention of the appellants that the respondent was on probation, has failed on a close analysis of the evidence on record. The Standing Order 15 is not complied with and as such this appeal has no force. I, therefore, dismiss it.

A. E.

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.