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. MN-66 of 1984, decided on 18th November, 1984.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--
---S.Os. 15 a 13--Retrenchment--Permanent post can be retrenched for good reasons--Post not needed and abolished to reduce expenditure- Services of incumbent (Mali) terminated--Order of Labour Court awarding re-instatement with back benefits, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). Ss. 25-A & 38(3).
Afzaal Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th November 1984.
The decision, dated 12-2-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent is a gardener in the office of the Director Housing & Physical Planning. His services were terminated on the ground that there was no need to keep a gardener and expenses were to be curtailed. It was also said in the order of termination that the respondent had not done any work. In the opinion of the learned lower Court it was a termination simplicitor but on the allegation of mis-conduct the respondent was removed from service. It has been argued before me that since the allegation is that the respondent did not do any work, allegation of misconduct was made against him. The learned lower Court has wrongly held so. The allegation was not that there was work for the respondent but he did not do his duty. The case of the appellant is that services of a Mali are not required. So no allegation of misconduct was made. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that a junior man namely, Aziz Mali has been retained, se the order of termination is not maintainable. R.W. 2 stated that Aziz was employed in the office of the Deputy Director and not in the office of the appellant. Since there are two different establishments, no question of seniority between the respondent and Aziz, employee of the office of the Deputy Director, arises It appears that since the office of the appellant and that of the Deputy Director are located in the same building, so not two but one Mali is needed. The appellant appears to have retrenched the post of Mali. As the two offices are independent though located in the same building, either of two heads could retrench the post of Mali for economy sake. So the act of the appellant does not appear to be illegal or mala fide.
3. The learned lower Court has also remarked that since according to Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the respondent had become permanent, no retrenchment could be made. This view is ex facie erroneous. A permanent post can be retrenched for good reasons. The learned lower Court has said that it was not proved that economy measures were adopted in respect of heads such as telephone and transport. The answer is simple that the respondent did not urge in the petition that no attempt had been made to reduce the expenditure in other heads, so no evidence on the point was led. Some economy cut may have been made in other heads. So the impugned decision of the learned lower Court is not sustainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.
A. E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer