Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. RI‑697 of 1984, decided on 21st September, 1985.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 12(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Reasons to be mentioned‑ Probationer not excluded from application of S.O. 12(3)‑‑Termination order without giving reasons‑‑Nullity in law even in case of probationer.
(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 2(i)‑‑Workman‑‑Sales Officer‑‑Main duty to maintain accounts of godown and also responsible to promote sales‑‑Main duty of maintaining accounts books of clerical work‑‑No proof of supervision of work of anyone‑‑Held: a workman.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner not asserting that he remained jobless after termination of service‑‑Back benefits, in circumstances, held, rightly disallowed.
Muhammad Saleem Khan for Appellant.
M. Asadullah Siddiqui for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985.
The decision, dated 20‑11‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby Major Abdul Waheed Zafar (hereinafter to be called as "the respondent") was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. Fauji Fertilizers Company Limited (hereinafter to be described as "the appellant") has challenged the direction of re‑instatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. As both the appeals arise from the same order, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. No reason is given in the order of termination Exh. P.3, dated 11‑4‑1983. The respondent was appointed as Sales Officer, vide order Exh. P.2, dated 12‑10‑1982 with effect from 27‑9‑1982. Since no ground is given in the order of termination, Standing Order 12(3) stands violated and the order is a nullity in law. This argument has no force that during the period of probation the respondent was terminated. No doubt, the period of probation was fixed as six months in the terms and conditions of service Exh. P.1, but since the terms were against the Standing Order of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, they had no legal force. The respondent stood confirmed on the expiry of three months and thus became a permanent employee. Even if he had been terminated within the probationary period, the orders would have been in violation of Standing Order 12(3) as giving of reasons for termination of service of even a probationer is necessary. Probationers are not excluded from the application of Standing Order 12(3).
3. The only point on which the case hinges is whether the respondent is covered by the definition of workman given in Standing Order 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. No document in the shape of duty roster was produced by either party. The respondent deposed that he used to prepare orders for the supply of goods. R.W.1 did not rebut this evidence. Rather he stated that the respondent used to maintain complete accounts of the godowns of the company. This was a clerical B work. No doubt it was one of the duties of the respondent to promote the sale of the goods of the appellant but t4lis not being only the main duty, he was not ousted from the definition of workman by performing this duty. Maintenance of account books of godowns also being the main duty brought the respondent within the pale of workman. R.W. stated that warehouse supervisor was under the control of the respondent but his oral evidence is not sufficient. No document such as leave applications sanctioned by the respondent or any order showing that he used to supervise the working of the warehouse supervisor has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant from the record. The learned lower Court has, therefore, rightly adjudged the respondent as a workman and rightly directed his re‑instatement.
4. However, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits as he did not assert that he remained jobless after his services were terminated.) As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
A.E.
Appeals dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer