1983 PLP 952 (PLC(CS))

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Ss. 25-A & 37 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12 & 13-Grievance petition against termination of service -Termination order stating that services no longer required-Petition resisted on plea that it was simpliciter due to workman being surplus hence within competence of employer-Petition dismissed by Labour Court-Two workers of same category retained-No evidence indicative that principle of "last in first go" followed--Case, in circumstances, remanded by Appellate Tribunal to Labour Court for giving findings on such point after opportunity of evidence to both parties. Ali Ahmed for Appellant. Samiullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing : 20th February, 1983. DECISION The services of the appellant, who was employed as a Chowkidar in the respondent organization, were terminated vide letter, dated 4th May, 1981, on the ground that the company no longer required the services of the appellant. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a grievance petition before the learned Third Labour Court, which teas dismissed the same, on the ground that Standing Order 12 entitled an employer to terminate the services of a workman at any time be likes even by way of punishment. It may, however, be pointed out that whereas clause (1) of Standing Order 12 entitled the employer to terminate the services of even a permanent workman on one month's notice or pay in lieu of, notice, where the services .of a workman are sought to be terminated on the ground of misconduct, the procedure prescribed in Standing Order 15 is to--be followed., as provided in clause (5) of Standing Order

12. In the instant case, through three appears to be termination simpliciter of the appellant s services according to the order, dated 4th May, 1982, it has been asserted by the respondent company's witness, M. Y. Poonawalla, that the appellant for most of the period of his -employment always remained away from his place of duty and, accordingly, the Management regarded the appellant's services as of no value: One way of looking at the said evidence of witness Poonawalla would be that the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground of habitual neglect of duty, which is mis conduct for the purposes of Standing Order

15. It was, however, urged by Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent com pany, that in fact tire services of the appellant were terminated as he was surplus to the ' requirements of the respondent-Company and no other Chowkidar was appointed in his place as categorically stated by the respondent company's witness, Poonawalla. Even if the contention of Mr. Samiullah Khan be correct the question that has to be deter mined in the instant case is whether the principle of "Last in First to Go." enshrined in Standing Order 13 was followed while termina ting the services of the appellant. It has been asserted by the appellant's witness, S. M. Ilyas, who is the President of the Aspro Nicholas Emp loyees' Union, that there are two Chowkidars working in the respondent-company. There is no evidence to indicate whether these two Chowki dars are junior to the appellant or were appointed after the services of the appellant were terminated, As this evidence will have a vital bearing on the issue whether the provisions of Standing Order 13 have been complied with, assuming that the termination of services of the appellant is termination simpliciter, I would remand the case to the learned Labour Court for giving a finding on this issue after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on the said issue. Appeal dismissed.