Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑571 of 1984, decided on 1st October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 7‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(c), S.O. 12(5)‑‑Provisions of Ordinance, 1968, held, applicable to Punjab Urban Transport Corporation‑‑Permanent Badli Conductor removed from service for misconduct with enquiry‑‑Termination order, was; illegal.

Khalid Farooq for Appellant.

Shafiq‑ul‑Islam for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985.

The decision, dated 12‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.

2. The name of the appellant was brought on the approved panel of Conductors to be given duty during the temporary absence of permanent Conductors. He was removed from the panel. The learned lower Court has held on the basis of the documents produced by the appellant that he worked for more than 183 days in twelve months and thus became permanent Badli Conductor. The case of the appellant, however, was that he was not appointed as Badli Conductor but against a permanent post and thus had become permanent and could not be removed from service without being charge‑sheeted and holding inquiry into the allegations of unsatisfactory performance. If the stand taken by the appellant is accepted, he would have no case of re‑instatement as it has not been pointed out by the learned counsel that the appellant worked satisfactorily for three months or more. He is in reality a permanent Badli Conductor and has been rightly held so by the learned lower Court. On behalf of the respondent cross objections have also been filed but character of the appellant as Badli Conductor has not been challenged. The pleas are that the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 does not cover Standing Order 12(2). The plea is wholly misconceived. According to section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, Standing Order 12(2) has been applied to that transport service to which other Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable and has been made applicable by the Government by means of a notification. According to section 1(4)(c) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance applies to such industrial and commercial establishments where number of workers is 20 or more. This is not the case of the respondent that the number of workers is less than 20. So according to section 1(4)(c), the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to the respondent. Since the allegations amount to misconduct, charge‑sheeting or holding inquiry were necessary as required by Standing Order 12(5). So the order of termination was illegal and has been rightly struck down by the learned lower Court.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant did say in his statement that he was jobless since the order of termination of his services. So he has been wrongly disallowed back benefits.

4. As a result, the cross objections are dismissed and accepting the appeal of the appellant, the appellant is allowed full back benefits.

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.