1976 PLP 500 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 4th May 1976. This is an appeal against the decision dated 20‑3‑1976 of Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore given under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. Rang Elahi, appellant joined Fauji Cotton Mills, Hasanabdal, District Campbellpur as a time‑keeper on probation on 4‑8‑1975 He applied for sick leave from 25‑10‑1975 to 4‑11‑1975 but the leave was not granted as his services had already been terminated on 20‑10‑1975 vide termination order Exh. RB. In that order it was mentioned that his services had been terminated within the probationary period. In the termination order Exh. RC which was sent to the appellant, the reason for the termination of his services given was that he was not found suitable for the work for which he was employed. Thereafter the appellant challenged the order of termination of his services before the learned Labour Court by way of a petition under section 25‑A of the Ordinance. He alleged that the real reason for the termination of his services was that he had refused to appear as a witness against his co‑worker and that on account of his refusal he was victimized. The respondent denied this allegation. Since no evidence was produced to prove the alleged allegation, the learned Labour Court rejected the petition.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. It was contended by the appellant that since no inquiry was held, the order of termination of his services was illegal. In the present case as already mentioned above the appellant was employed on 4‑8‑1975 and his services were terminated on 24‑10‑1975, which shows that his services were terminated within the probationary period of three months, Under Standing Order I of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 there are different categories of workmen namely:

Permanent, Probationers, Badlis, Temporary, and Apprentices. Standing Order 1(b) reads as follows :‑ A "Permanent Workman" is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock‑out, strike (not being an illegal lockout or strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a badli who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty three days during any period of twelve consecutive months. Standing Order l(c) reads as follows :‑ in a post and has not completed three months services therein. If a permanent employee is employed as probationer in a higher post he may, at any time during the probationary period of three months, be reverted to his old permanent post. Standing Order 1(c) reads as follows :‑ A "Temporary Workman" is a workman who has been engaged for work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within the period not exceeding nine months. In the present case the appellant was not engaged for work which was of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within the period not exceeding nine months, therefore, he was not a temporary workman. He was also not a permanent workman because he had not completed the period of three months of services. 5: According to Standing Order 12(3) the services of a workman cannot be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In the instant cas^, the reason for termination of services of the appellant was that he was not found suitable for work for which he was employed, Therefore the, above provision has been complied with. According to Standing Orders 12(5) the services of a permanent or temporary workman cannot be terminated on the ground of misconduct otherwise than in the manner prescribed in Standing Order

15. This provision will not be applicable to the appellant because he was neither a permanent nor a temporary workman, according to the definition given in Standing Orders 1(b) and I (e). Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the appellant was a temporary workman the reason for the termination of his services is not misconduct as defined in Standing Order 15(3). Therefore, Standing Order 12(5) will not be applicable to him.

6. In the result I find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.