1987 PLP 194 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of services‑ Workman while admitting that he was not a permanent employee alleging that his services were terminated through verbal orders‑No letter of termination shown to have been served on workman by Management‑Labour Court directing that a copy of letter of termination be supplied to applicant and dues payable to him upto date of termination should be paid forthwith‑‑Management failing to submit anything in rebuttal of Labour Court's observations/findings‑‑Order of Labour Court maintained and appeal dismissed. Abdul Rauf submitted an appeal against the impugned order, 8‑10‑1984, passed by the VIIth Sind Labour Court, Sukkur, who allowed the grievance petition of the appellant, filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed by the respondent Railways on 2‑12‑1979, as Tool Checker but, was declared surplus and was absorbed as Store Issuer under Head Train Examiner, Pakistan Railways Rohri against existing vacancy. He worked as Store Issuer upto 23‑6‑1983, but, in May, 1983 the respondent stopped his regular salary. Ultimately, on 23‑6‑1983, the respondents terminated the services of the appellant through verbal order. The appellant claimed that he is also son of a retired Railway employee therefore, he is entitled to employment in the Railway Department against 50$ reserved quota.

3. The case of the respondent Railway is that the appellant was engaged as substitute Tool Checker on 3‑12‑1979 on purely temporary basis and was subsequently absorbed as Store Issuer on temporary basis as the post of Tool Checker was surrendered. Further, the appellant has alleged that the appellant was appointed all the time for three months and after termination every time he was appointed afresh and was treated as substitute and that the services of the appellant were rightly terminated by the competent authority vide Notice No. 839‑E/5/Bills, dated 23‑6‑1983 and that it is incorrect to say that his services ‑were terminated through orders. It is further contended that due to the ban on recruitment in the cadre of Store Issuer/Tool Checker, the question of appointing the appellant in that category does not arise and likewise, it is alleged that no right guaranteed to the appellant has been infringed and that he also did not serve the grievance notice, therefore, the grievance petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable

4. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellant and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. The findings of the learned Labour Court in the concluding para. of the impugned order is re‑produced as under: This brings me to the second point. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that this application should be allowed but .I must also take into consideration the fact that the applicant in his cross‑examination admitted that he was not a permanent worker and his services were terminated with effect from 23‑6‑1983. In other words he was not kept in total dark by the respondents. The only missing line is that the letter of termination was not given to him in writing as there is nothing on record from the side of the respondents that the letter of termination was served on him. In these circumstances, I allow the grievance application with the observation that a copy of the letter of termination be supplied to the applicant and the dues payable to him including the salary for the months of May 1983 should be paid to him forthwith. As, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to submit anything, in rebuttal of the above observation of the learned Labour Court, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The order of the learned Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. S. Q. Appeal dismissed