1987 PLP 62 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1986. These 3 appeals are disposed of by this single decision. It is so decided because there is a common issue arising out of the pleadings of 3 respondents.

2. I would take up the case of Muhammad Dauraiz in the first instance. He says that he was a conductor and worked with the appellant Corporation since 4‑10‑1981. He was dismissed from service verbally on 16‑7‑1983. No show‑cause notice or charge‑sheet etc. were given to him. He therefore, sent a grievance notice through registered, A/D post and subsequently filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The stand of the appellant Corporation is that the services of the respondent were not terminated on account of any misconduct but the said action was taken during the probationary period as per terms and conditions of the employment. The appellant Corporation also took up the legal objections that the respondent was appointed not permanent basis, on 5‑7‑1983 and was kept on 3 months' probationary period and within this period, his services were terminated. Hence, no cause of action accrued to the respondent.

4. The sole point which required determination in the case of Muhammad Dauraiz was whether the termination of respondent's services was valid or invalid.

5. The parties filed their respective affidavits. In cross‑examination, the respondent clearly stated that he never received any termination letter from the appellant corporation. On the other hand, the Corporation's witeness, Major (Rtd.) M.Sadiq stated that the respondent was served with the termination letter, dated 16‑7‑1983. His cross -examination is as under: ‑ "It is incorrect to suggest that no termination letter was given to the applicant during the period from 4‑10‑1981 to 16‑7‑1983. I produce the same (Exhs. R‑1/1, 1/2, 1/3). On one termination letter the signature of the applicant appears but I cannot say whether the remaining termination letter were served on the applicant. It is incorrect to suggest that on 16‑7‑1983 the termination letter was not served on the applicant. This termination letter was given to the applicant, by hand. I produce the copy of the termination letter which bears signatures of the applicant (Exh. R‑1/4). It is incorrect to suggest that I have wrongly stated that the signatures of applicant appears on the termination letter. (Note‑‑ the witness has asked to identify the signatures of the applicant on Exh. R‑1/4. He is unable to identify the same as more than two signatures appear on this document and, therefore, according to him it is difficult to say about the signature of the applicant)."

6. From the cross‑examination, it is clear that the signatures of the respondent Dauraiz were denied by Dauraiz on the termination letters and the clerk who took the signatures of Dauraiz was not examined by the trial Court. Thus, it not proved that the termination letter was received by the respondenT. The entire issue is doubtful.

7. I would now consider the case of respondent, Gohar Rehman. According to him, he was conductor since 26‑9‑1981 and was dismissed on 10‑9‑1983. No written dismissal order was served on him. No charge sheet was given to him. In this case, the appellant Corporation contended that he was appointed on 27‑7‑1983 and was kept on probation for 3 months. His services were terminated on 10‑9‑1983, within the probationary period. Therefore, the question of issuance of charge‑sheet of holding of proper enquiry does not arise. In the evidence, the Corporation's witness, Major (Rtd.) M.Sadiq stated that the termination) order was served on the respondent vide Entry at page No.9, dated 10‑9‑1983, on the charge Register. In cross‑examination, he stated B that the entries in the charge Register were made by the Duty Clerk. The said Duty Clerk was not examined. The signatures on charge Register were denied by the respondent, Gohar Rehman. The Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the termination order was neither issued nor served on the respondent.

8. Lastly, I would take up the case of Sagheer Ahmad whose contentions were that he was appointed as a Conductor since 21‑9‑1981, and he was dismissed on 30‑9‑1983. No written order for dismissal was served on him. The contention of the appellant‑Corporation was that the respondent was appointed on 26‑8‑1983 and was kept on probation of 3 months and his services were terminated on 13‑9‑1983. The evidence of Major (Rtd.) M. Sadiq and his cross‑examination is perused by me. The so‑called signatures of the respondent on duty Register are denied a by the respondent. Duty clerk is not examined. His case is similar as that of Dauraiz and Gohar Rehman.

9. I find these 3 cases that the Corporation or the management has implied tactics that the conductors were re‑employed every time for probation of 3 months. It is not denied by the establishment that they were not appointed in the year 1981. But, from the record, it appears that after each 3 months, they were freshly appointed. This was to circumvent the enquiry if possible. The continuance of the conductors in the employment would suggest that they were permanent conductors, only their employment was renewed after each 3 months or so.

10. It is proved that termination order was not received by these 3 months. The Labour Court has rightly held that the termination order was not strictly proved, because the Duty Clerk was not examined and the signatures on the Register were denied by all the 3 respondents. E He, therefore, ordered their re‑instatement with full back benefits. I find no fault with the re‑instatement order of the three respondents. However, I would not give them the back benefits with this modification, these three appeals are dismissed. A. A. Appeal dismissed.