Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑287 of 1984, heard on 4th April, 1985,

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑Grievance petition against alleged verbal dis missal‑Employer's plea that petitioner had deserted and there was neither dismissal order nor termination of service order‑No reasons for alleged desertion adduced‑Grievance petition by petitioner, in circumstances, held, gave rise to presumption that as per contention of petitioner be was asked to resign and on his refusal to do so, met with fate of verbal dismissal‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances,, awarding re‑instatement with back benefits.

S. Safdar Hussain for Appellant.

Suleman Habibullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 4th April, 1985. .

DECISION

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 22nd October; 1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 'V at Karachi. The .facts which relate to the instant appeal are that the appellant. Muhammad Ismail was employed as Assistant Fitter and a permanent workman in the respondent establishment getting a salary of Rs. 550. The allegation was that he did overtime work up to May, 1982, but he did not receive the overtime. He complained to the management which required him to resign. He did not resign, therefore, he was served with a verbal order that he is dismissed. The stand taken by the respondents is that he was not dismissed nor his services were terminated but be remained absent from the duties ever since. The respondents have reiterated that there was no dispute of overtime nor the appellant ever did any overtime.

In the Labour Court, affidavit Exh. 3 was filed by the appellant and the respondents filed affidavit Exh. 4 of one Iqbal Ahmad, Manager of the Mills. Both were cross‑examined. The learned Labour Court struck two issues, namely, (I) whether the appellant was not paid overtime ; and (2) whether the appellant was illegally dismissed. He came to the conclusion considering the evidence on record that he did not do overtime and he has no cause of action.

3. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. Safdar Hussain for the appellant and Mr. Suleman Habibullah for the respondents. .

4. The registers and the attending register do not mention that the appellant did overtime. These registers are maintained by the manage ment. They have not shown overtime earned by the appellant. The only fault of the appellant is that he did not substantiate this by an independent evidence brought on record before the Labour Court. The registers are maintained by the management, hence, they carried no entries as‑regards the overtime. The appellant in his grievance application has . mentioned that he was asked to resign but he did not do so. Therefore, verbally he was dismissed. This point is got to be considered. If he voluntarily remained absent from duties then why did he submit grievance petition. There is something more than meets eye. The reason is not shown by the Management as to why he remained absent and deserted his duties. All the same he made a grievance petition before the Labour Court is a circumstance that gives rise to a presumption that he was in fact asked to resign which he did not do and met with the fate of verbal dismissal. In the arguments, the learned counsel for the Management could not satisfy me as the circumstance of his remaining absent without cause. I have the facts of the case and the nature of the grievance of the appellant have come to the conclusion that the order of the Labour Court is erroneous and it is got to be set aside. Accordingly the order is set The appellant is reinstated. He is granted the full back benefits, the Management shall deposit before this Tribunal within a period fifteen days.

A. E.

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.