Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑561 of 1983, heard on 19th August, 1985.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1988)‑‑

‑‑‑S.O. 13‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A 38(3)‑‑Termination of service purportedly due to non‑existence of job‑‑Workman previously terminated but re‑instated under orders of High Court‑‑Juniors retained‑‑Labour Court finding that petitioner ousted from service maliciously without good reasons‑‑Appellate Tribunal convinced that impugned termination order influenced by order of High Court re‑instating workman and evidence indicative that workman victimised due to malice‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances maintaining order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition.

S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Appellant.

Suleman Habibullah for Respondent.

Date of tearing: 19th August, 1985.

This appeal is directed against the order of Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi, dated 22‑8‑1983 Abid Hussain is the respondent whose story is divided in two episodes. Originally he was appointed by the appellants, National Construction Company Ltd. in the year 1975 as a helper but subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Supervisor (Electrical), vide order, 14‑6‑1977. Then he was given an assignment at Zarqa Project, Jordan, where neither he was sent nor the appellants released the respondent for this project. He filed a petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, which was dismissed. Even, the appeal in the Tribunal was dismissed. In a writ petition before the High Court he was directed to be reinstated. The Management went in appeal to the Supreme Court in which the leave to file the Appeal was not granted. The appellants were, therefore, constrained to reinstate him. This is the first episode of his story. After the reinstatement, he was posted in main Power Office, 49‑D, P. E. C. H. S. Society by the appellants. There was work of the Assistant Electrical Supervisor but he was given various types of duties i.e., telephone operator, delivery‑man, dispatcher and other works of clearance of passports apart from the job of Assistant Electrical Supervisor which work was being performed by the respondent. He performed his duties quite diligently. He applied for leave on 17‑4‑1982, which was refused by the appellants. Then, again he applied for annual leave which was also refused. The grievance notice was given by the respondent and his grievance was not redressed. His services then were terminated. The grievance petition was thus filed by the respondent.

2. In this case the appellants filed reply statement stating therein that the respondent had no right guaranteed under. any law, settlement or award to file the grievance petition. It is alleged that the respondent was not selected for Zarqa Project etc. The respondent was reinstated as Assistant Supervisor (Electrical) in compliance to the orders passed by the High Court. He was posted at main Power Office, 49‑D, P. E. C.H.S. The project 'N' 'M' 'L' was completed. There was no job of the Assistant Supervisor (Electrical) and, therefore, he was asked to do temporarily and occasionally some other jobs like, telephone operator, delivery‑man, dispatcher and other works of clearance of passports. The respondent was not able to perform the said jobs properly and as the job of Assistant Supervisor (Electrical) was not available and the post was redundant and the respondent was surplus, therefore, his services were terminated as he was no longer required in case of his being surplus.

3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Advocate for the respondent. It was argued by Mr. S. Qamaruddin that for the post of Assistant Electrical Supervisor, the necessary certificate was to be obtained under Electricity Law. Mr. Suleman Habitwllah read out the relevant section and it was found that the same wan not necessary for the appointment of Electrical Supervisor. The counsel of the appellants, Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan has argued that he was surplus and, therefore, his services were terminated. In the evidence, it has come that his juniors were retained but the respondent: was ousted from duty. I have read impugned order of the Labour Court. To my mind, it appears that the first episode of the respondent has influenced the second episode and the prestige of the appellants seems to have been injured by complying the orders of the High Court. From the nature of the evidence, it appears that he was victimized due to malice. The Labour Court has held that he was maliciously ousted from service without good reasons. After having gone through the entire record, I am also of the same opinion and feel that the order of the Labour Court must be maintained. Hence, the appeal is 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.