Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑247 of 1985, decided on 22nd September, 1985.

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

‑‑‑S.O. 12(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Order mentioning no reason‑ Illegal.

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

‑‑‑S. 2(i)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.2 (xxviii)‑ Workman‑‑Head Mistry‑‑Doing manual work in preparing mould and repairs with his own hands‑‑No supervisory duties established‑‑‑Mere pay of Rs.1,500 p.m. in circumstances, held, not sufficient to oust such employee from definition of workman.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 17th September, 1985.

The decision, dated 14‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits.

2. The stand taken by the appellant was that as there was no work and factory had been closed, the services of the respondent were terminated. Even if it was so, the order of termination of service is hit by Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 inasmuch as no order was recorded in writing giving reasons. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the number of workers being less than 20, the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable, so observance of the provisions of Standing order 12(3) was not necessary and the respondent had no right guaranteed by any law No doubt in the written statement plea was raised that Standing orders Ordinance, 1968 yeas not applicable but it was not disclosed any it was so. For many reasons Standing Orders Ordinance may not play and one of those reasons is if the number of employees is less then 20. Since it was not contended in the written statement that amber of employees was less than 20, the respondent was not aware it and did not produce any evidence on this point. After the respondent had closed his case, R.W.1 abruptly said that the number employees was nine only. The respondent could not be caught unaware. Even if at the time the services of the respondent were terminated the number of workers was short of 20 yet Standing Orders Ordinance, ‑. "68 could apply if within the preceding 12 months the number was 20 more. If such an objection had been taken, the respondent may have led evidence to establish that the number of employees was 20 or at the time of his termination of services or within 12 months receding the date of the order of termination.

3. It has also been argued that the respondent is not covered by the definition of worker as given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent was a Head Mistri. His wages were hs.1,500 as stated by him. The respondent deposed that he was doing manual work by preparing mould and doing other repairing work with his own hands. He also said that nobody was under him and he had no rower to sanction leave to any employee or to turn him out of service. R.W.I said that the respondent used to get work done from Mistries. This evidence is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the respondent and his witness P.W. 2. R.W.l has not said which work the respondent used to do if he used to get work done by the Mistries. The statement of the respondent that he was doing work himself and that he could not grant leave to any person stands un-rebutted. The mere fact that B his pay was Rs.1,500 is not sufficient to oust him from the definition workman since it does not stand established that he had supervisory sties.

4. As a result, the appeal being without any substance is dismissed.

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.