Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.LHR‑580 of 1985, decided on 3rd February, 1986.

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

‑‑‑S.O. 12 (3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Post existing‑‑Services no longer required, in circumstances, not a reason for termination and termination order with such a reason illegal.

Yawar Ali Khan for Appellants.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.

The decision, dated 15‑10‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2, The respondent was initially employed as Store Officer on 11‑5‑1581 vide Exh.P.1 but was later on redesignated as Store‑keeper and confirmed as such on 20‑10‑1982 vide Exh.P.2. His services were terminated, vide order Exh.P.3, dated 24‑1‑1983. The reason given is "services no longer required". Only two points are involved in this appeal‑‑one is if the respondent has been wrongly adjudged as a workman and the other is whether his services were rightly terminated.

3. So far as the question of workman is concerned, the respondent deposed that he used to maintain paddy register, cotton seed register, seed store register, weekly despatch register and wheat register. He also deposed that wheat issued, sale vouchers and determine vouchers were prepared by him. As a specimen he produced extracts Exh.P.4 of the registers maintained by him and said that all the entries of the registers were in his handwriting. R.W.1 said that the central record was with the respondent and he himself used to make entries in it. The evidence of this witness is that the respondent was incharge of all the stores and used to look after them. He did not say that the respondent used to supervise the working of the persons employed in the stores, but as mentioned above said that he was Incharge of the Stores. So his evidence does not rebut the evidence of the respondent. Rather he supports the respondent since he says that the respondent used to keep central record and used to make entries therein himself. R.W.2 no doubt said that the respondent was supervisor and that his pay was Rs.852 but has not given the actual duties performed by him. He said that the respondent could recommend leave but no leave application recommended by' him was produced as a specimen. Since all the record is with the appellant, the same could be produced to show that the duties of the‑ respondent were supervisory. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to say that the duties of the respondent were mainly supervisory. So his pay being Rs.852 is not sufficient. He has been rightly declared by the learned lower Court as a workman.

4. The reason given in the order of termination from service is "no longer required". This is no reason. It is not said that the post of the respondent was abolished. The termination order, therefore, is in violation of Standing Order 12 (3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The statement of the respondent that Rana Muhammad Saleem is working on his post does not stand rebutted as the R.Ws. did not say anything in this respect. So, the post exists. The order of termination from service, therefore, was illegal and has been rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. No other point has been argued.

5. As a result, the appeal fails and is thus 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.