Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑304 of 1984, heard on 1^st December, 1985.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 12(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Arrest by Police and conviction by Summary Military Court‑‑Workman arrested and convicted by Summary Military Court and sentenced to imprisonment on charge of rowdyism and not for charge involving moral turpitude‑‑Application by workman for leave with or without pay for period of imprisonment and grant of leave for period of detention in jail though such detention was not on conviction‑‑Leave not granted and services terminated on plea that duties had to be assigned to some one else‑‑Workman already put in 12 years service‑ ‑‑Matter, in circumstances, held, should have been given enough thought and consideration specially on grounds of absence of any charge of moral turpitude instead of termination in slipshod manner‑‑Appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement but without back benefits because workman, was confined in jail.

Ali Amjad for Appellant.

S. Qamaruddin Hassfin for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1^st December, 1985.

This appeal arises against the order, dated 22‑10‑1984, of the fInd Sind Labour Court, Karachi.

2. The appellant was a permanent workman in the respondent establishment and had served for 12 long years. He was an office‑bearer of the C.B.A. Union. The allegation of the appellant is that he was falsely involved and arrested by police for violation of Martial Law Regulations. There was some agitations in pursuance of M.R.D. actions and the police caught hold of the present appellant and challaned him in Summary Military Court, who convicted him for 9 months and a fine of Rs.20,000. The period of sentence ran from 7‑9‑1983. The appellant informed the respondents about his arrest and made a request that he may be granted leave with pay or without pay for such period that he is confined in jail. But, the respondents terminated his services and communicated in the letter, dated 29‑10‑1983. The plea of the appellant is, in his grievance petition, that there are a number of cases in which the leave was granted by the respondents in similar cases but in his case the leave was not granted and this action appears to be mala fide. His services were terminated under Order.12, clause (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

3. Respondents in the reply statement raised legal pleas that there was no right guaranteed or secured under the law to the appellant and further his services were terminated on his failure to attend the duties for which they had to manage to assign the duties to some one else. Since he was‑convicted, therefore, the respondents were within their rights to terminate the services of the appellant.

4. The appellant filed his affidavit and was cross‑examined. Respondents filed affidavit of Herold A. Meik and he, was also cross examined.

5. This appeal was argued by Mr. Ali Amjad on the side of the appellant and Syed Qamaruddin Hassan on behalf of the respondents. It may be mentioned that the legal objections were dropped by the respondents' Advocate and the matter was argued on the facts. No doubt, the appellant was convicted by the Summary Military Court. The plea of the appellant from the very beginning is that the police had arrested him without any evidence and in suspicion. He had committed no offence of either moral turpitude or was convicted of murder, theft or for that matter an offence of moral turpitude. The allegation against him is that he joined the movement of M. R. D. for restoring the democracy. In his petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, he has mentioned clearly in paras 3 and 4 that the demand of democracy was not an offence according to him but that he was not involved in that movement and the police only on suspicion had arrested him. There is evidence on record that in certain cases the respondents had granted long leave or leave without pay and since that principle and practice and policy was violated by the respondents in his case, he was done injustice.

6. It is true that there was no denial from the respondents regarding the grant of long leave to workers such Hameed Gul, are Hussain, Ata A Muhammad and Ashiq Hussain during the period of their detention in Jail. However, the detention in Jail was not on conviction.

7. I have heard the arguments in this case of both the learned counsel and feel that the termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, was rather hasty and no thought was given to the termination by the respondents. It was possible that the police just caught hold of the present appellant and without collecting B evidence got him convicted under Summary Military Court. Police can arrest any one, innocent or guilty in this matter. The respondents should have considered the service of 12 years by the appellant and in this slipshod manner ought not be have terminated his services because the Summary Military Court found him guilty for rowdyism. Enough thought and consideration should have been given by the respondents specially when there is no moral turpitude involved in the conviction of the present appellant. On this ground alone, I set aside the order of the Labour Court and uphold the appeal and order for re‑instatement of the appellant forthwith. However, the back benefits are not given since he was confined in Jail.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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