Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Kar‑100 of 1983, heard on 9th July, 1983.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against termination of employee‑‑ Maintainability‑‑Employee filing petition within statutory period of two months‑‑Court returning petition for presentation in proper Court‑ Petition duly presented in proper Court, held, to be within time.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Services of workman terminated on account of criminal charge and arrest‑‑Workman being permanent employee, held, should have been given chance to vindicate his innocence in Court O‑T‑Taw or in domestic enquiry before such action was taken against him by employer‑‑Termination simplicitor being uncalled for, employee was ordered to be reinstated‑‑Back benefits, however, were not given to employee on account of pending criminal trial‑‑Back benefits if allowed would be loss to employer in case of conviction of employee.

S.P. Lodhi for Appellant.

M.A. Hassan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1983.

This appeal arises against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi, who announced the impugned order on 20‑2‑1983, holding that the termination of the services of the appellant by respondents was quite legal.

2. The facts are that the appellant, Ijmal Muhammad was a permanent workman with the respondent s factory. In November, 1983, Police happened to have arrested the appellant and charged chat he was having in possession contraband Charas and he remained in Jail for 11 days. He was, however, released on bail. The Management on 15‑12‑1981 sent a termination letter, dated 15‑12‑1981 on the home address. It was letter of termination simplicitor. The termination letter mentioned the reasons that the appellant had jeopardised the business and goodwill of the company, and therefore, with a view to save the reputation and goodwill of the organization from any further deterioration, the services of the appellant were terminated with immediate effect as he was no longer required. This notice was published in Daily 'Jang', dated 25‑12‑1981. The appellant gave a grievance notice, dated 28‑12‑1981, wherein he alleged that his services have been terminated without any explicit reasons and that he was innocent so far the criminal case was concerned till he is found guilty by the Law Court. The appellant sent another grievance notice through his Advocate on 15‑1‑1982 in which he mentioned the same grounds. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. The respondents challenged the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No. IV, by an application, dated 8‑4‑1982. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. II passed an order on 21‑8‑1982 returning the application to the applicant for filing it before the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction. It was then filed in the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, on 28‑8‑1982.

3. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application was barred by time. It was further contended that the termination order was perfectly legal and did not suffer from any illegality.

4. I have perused the impugned order and heard the arguments of Mr.. S.P. Lodhi and Mr. M.A. Hassan.

5. As regards the first point, the learned Labour Court has held that the grievance petition was well within time before the Labour Court No. II as it was filed before that Court on 3‑3‑1982. The appellant had given the grievance notice on 28‑12‑1981 and he received the reply on 11‑1‑1982. The proviso under subsection (4) of section 25‑A provides that a worker who desires to take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer. The appellant received the communication on 11‑1‑1982 and was, therefore, entitled to file the application on or before 11‑3‑1982. However, the appellant filed the application on 3‑3‑1982, which was well within time. The returning of the application to be presented before the proper Court was capitalized by the counsel of the appellant in the Labour Court but the Labour Court found that the arguments were fallacious. It was held to be within time. I would rather agree that the note of the learned Labour Court in this respect that the appellant's grievance petition was within time.

6. As regards the next point, which touches the termination in simplicitor and the reasons thereof, I have heard the arguments of the learned representative, Mr. S.P. Lodhi on this point. Mr. S.P. Lodhi has lengthy arguments touching the reasons given in the termination order regarding the reputation and the goodwill of the company having been lost by the fact that the appellant was caught by Police in a Charas case. He made arguments that the Management would always require in case of unwanted employee, to file a case against him with the Police and get him arrested. This is the position, which is pointed out for an example. As a matter of fact the accused in a criminal case should be found guilty by the Court of Law till then he is deemed innocent. The appellant is a permanent employee and he should have been given the chance to vindicate himself in the Court of Law and also to vindicate before the Management as regards his innocence. The learned representative of the appellant alleged that how the reputation of such a big company is lowered by an incident of the arrest of the accused in a Charas case. The company deals in pharmacy and there would be no reputation loss on account of a Police case till the accused is found guilty. It is argued that the reasons given in the termination order was a stigma and as such a domestic enquiry should have been conducted. He be given chance to vindicate his innocence in the Court of Law or in the domestic enquiry. The loss of reputation by the company is preposterous. Under this circumstance, I find that the termination simplicitor was uncalled for. A regular domestic enquiry should have been conducted.

7. In the result, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the appeal and hereby order that the appellant be reinstated in service forthwith. As regards the back benefits, I am not inclined to give back benefits to the appellant. The back benefits are not given to the appellant on the ground that he is facing a criminal trial and if he is convicted, it would be a loss to the Management.

A. A.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.