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.HYD‑270 of 1984, heard on 11th November, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.Os. 1(e) & 12(5)‑‑Industrial Relations. Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Workman in Sugar Mills continuing in Service even after crushing season‑‑No evidence that job was essentially of temporary nature to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months‑‑Not a temporary workman‑‑Services terminated on account of unsatisfactory record‑‑Plea that workman being temporary no charge‑sheet and enquiry was required‑‑Plea rejected‑‑Labour Courts order accepting grievance petition and awarding re‑instatement upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Raes Muhammad Mushtaq for Appellants.
Bashir Awan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.
This is an appeal which is directed against the order of Sind Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, dated 5‑11‑1984.
2. The facts are that the respondent was appointed on 22‑1‑1982 in the appellants mills and according to the respondent, he had worked to the entire satisfaction of the appellants‑management, but as he had taken active part in the affairs of Fauji Sugar Mills Mazdoor Union, his services were suddenly terminated with effect from 21‑5‑1983, with an allegation that he had unsatisfactory record. This termination was challenged in the Labour Court.
3. The stand taken by the appellants that the respondent was appointed admittedly on 22‑1‑1982. Further they have admitted that he was discharged from service on account of unsatisfactory record. The appellants further pleaded that the respondent was a temporary worker so he was rightly removed from service without issuing any charge‑sheet to him .
4. In the Labour Court the respondent examined himself. In support of his case while, Mr. Nasrullah Khan, Personnel Manager of the Mills was examined and cross‑examined, the appeal was heard today by me.
5. Mr. Raes Muhammad Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent was a temporary employee, namely, that he was employed during the seasonal mills extracting the sugar from the sugar‑cane and there was no necessity to give him a charge‑sheet. The respondent was a temporary employee as such without a charge‑sheet his service were terminated. This contention is not forceful. I would like to examine the situation as a whole. According to Standing Order 1 (e) a temporary workman is he who has been engaged for work which is of essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding 9 months. This is the definition given in the Standing Order 1(e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. whether the respondent was a temporary workman in view of this definition, in evidence it is neither pleaded in the written statement of the appellant, management nor in the evidence of Mr. Nasrullah Khan that the respondent was appointed in a job which was essentially of a temporary nature and that such a job was to be finished within a period not exceeding 9 months. But, in the case of the respondent the crushing period was over and, thereafter he continued from 22‑1‑1982 to 22‑4‑1982 and then again he was re‑employed from 15‑9‑1982, and allowed to perform his duties up to the date he was discharged, 21‑5‑1983. This shows that his job was not a temporary one and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to him in full force. Admittedly the work of the respondent was found unsatisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry" should have been conducted according to the provisions of Law.
6. After hearing the two counsels and after perusing the impugned decision of the Labour Court, I am of the opinion that the reinstatement of the respondent be maintained. As regards the back benefits, there is evidence on record that the respondent, during the period of his unemployment, was actually employed in Mehran Sugar Mills. Therefore, the back benefits need not be given.
7. The appeal is allowed to the extent of only back benefits, but it is dismissed to the extent of re‑instatement.
A. E. Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer