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 Nos. KAR. 349 to 359 of 1985, heard on 6th February, 1986.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 1 & 12(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service allegedly through gate stoppage verbally without written order‑‑Plea of employer that employees were merely working on daily wages and termination of service denied‑ Employees having already completed more than 9 months service and probationary period of 3 months, held, had attained status of permanent workers‑‑Termination of service, could be made by written order mentioning reasons thereof‑‑Practice of dismissing employees without written orders was detestable and depreciated being in violation of Standing Orders Ordinance VI of 1968‑‑Order of Labour Court directing employer to re‑instate employees with full back benefits maintained by Appellate Tribunal.
Aga Faquir Muhammad for Appellants.
S.M. Kohistani for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th February 1986.
The instant 11 appeals are disposed of by this single decision.
2. The appellants are Smile Garments Ltd. Karachi doing a business of making garments and exporting them to foreign countries. The respondents worked with the appellants for about 3 years and were, as such, permanent workmen. The appellants denied them rights and privilege, namely, leave, bonus, 5 share profit, and overtime at double rates etc. The respondents moved application for vindicating their rights before the Authority, East Division, Karachi and due to this, they were threatened by the appellants. The appellants ordered them to withdraw cases from the Labour Directorate. However, on 19‑7‑1984, when the respondents went for duty the appellants refused to take them back on duty and without any charge‑sheet or any termination letter in writing. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Labour Directorate and the appellants were called before the Labour Directorate and had stated there that they had not terminated the services of the respondents. However, the grievance petitions were filed before the Labour Court.
3. The stand taken by the appellants in the reply statements before the Labour Court is that the respondents were working on daily wages and they were not permanent workers of the establishment. The appellants, however, denied that the services of the respondents were terminated. Therefore, in the reply statement the contention is that the applications under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, were not maintainable.
4. In the Labour Court, affidavits were submitted by the respondents and they were cross‑examined excepting Abdul Razzaq, Atiqur Rehman, Syed Hashimuddin, Nafees Ahmed and Raees Ahmad. The affidavit of Louis B. Rodrigues was filed and he was cross‑examined by Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned representative for the respondents.
5. The arguments were submitted before me and I have heard them fully.
6. On record, it is proved that the respondents who are 11 in number, served the establishment from one year to three years. A permanent workman completes 9 months and the probationary period of 3 months and since each one of them has completed more than one year, they cannot be called temporary workmen or on daily wages. It is fully proved that the respondents were permanent workmen. Accordingly, the section 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applies to the respondents and their service be terminated by written order mentioning the reasons thereof. There is no written order in this case and there is no reason assigned to the termination and on the contrary the, appellants state that they have not terminated their service. The appellants have hood‑winked the labour and blow hot and cold at the same time to detriment of the respondents. This practice is detestable and is deprecated. The Labour Court has ordered that they be re‑instated in service with full tack benefits. I maintain this order and the appellants are directed to re‑instate the respondents in service with full back benefits forthwith.
7. However, Mr. Rodrigues has submitted before this Tribunal that they had not refused the respondents to take them back on duty. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the appellants to take them back on duty or to face criminal enquiry.
8. These 11 appeals are hereby dismissed.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer