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. LHR‑455 of 1984, decided on 12th December, 1984.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑‑S.O. 12(3) & (6)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Appointment for fixed period‑‑Recording of order for termination on expiry of fixed period, held, not necessary and involves no violation of S.O. 12(3) Grievance petition against such automatic termination, held, rightly disallowed by Labour Court.
Khalid Farooq for Appellant.
Shafiqul Islam for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th December, 1984.
The decision, dated 11‑7‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant had been previously dismissed from service but on preferring departmental appeal was re‑employed. He was after one month terminated orally and he challenged the termination on the ground that he had been employed against a permanent vacancy, so could not be terminated in violation of Standing Order 12(3) or without being charge‑sheeted and holding an enquiry against him.
3. According to the appellant, the order of re‑employment is Exh. P. 1 but according to the respondent, the order is Exh. R. 5. In reality Exh. R. 1 is not an appointment order but it is decision of the appeal of the appellant. The appellate authority rejected the appeal but directed his re‑employment against a vacancy. It was only a direction and that too in case there was a vacancy. Exh. R. 5 is the order of re‑employment. No doubt, in the written statement the order of re‑employment was, dated as 17‑8‑1981 but it appears to be a mistake of fact. Since in the grievance petition the order of re‑employment was, dated as 17‑8‑1981, so by mistake in the written statement the same date was mentioned.
4. It has also been argued that since number 'C' was allowed, the appellant was a permanent employee. R.W. 1, no doubt, stated that 'C' is allotted to a permanent employee but since in the same order Exh. R.5 it is clearly mentioned that the appellant had been employed for one month only, which period could be extended, he was not a permanent employee. When expressly the appellant was employed for one month only and there is no evidence that the post was permanent, merely by allotting 'C' to the appellant he did not become a regular employee. So, recording of order of‑termination was not necessary. On the expiry of the term of employment, the appellant stood automatically terminated. So Standing Order 12(3) was not violated. No doubt, no charge‑sheet was given but it was not necessary. This is noteworthy that in Standing Order 12(6) a probationer or an employee for a fixed period is not mentioned. So, the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly disallowed.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A . E. Appeal dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer