1983 PLP 1492 (PLC(CS))

‑‑-Termination of service‑Order must be in writing indicating reasons to satisfy Court whether termination was for cogent and sufficient reasons‑Bank employee having completed more than 3 months service (Probation period)‑Services terminated allegedly due to not passing a test‑No rules requiring passing such test forth coming‑Termination order not passed in writing Impugned termina tion, in circumstances, held, violative of First Wage Commission Award and rightly set aside by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) and First Wage Com mission Award, para.

234. Malik Sarfraz Hussain for Appellant. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 10th December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service allowing him benefits from 1st January, 1981.

2. The respondent was employed as Godown Keeper on Ist January, 1980 and on 28th February, 1980 he was temorarily posted as Recovery Assistant in the Sukhha Bosal Branch, where he served upto 10th August, 1980, On 11th August, 1980 he was posted as Cashier and he served there upto 31st December, 1980. According to the respondent, on 16th March, 1981'he was verbally informed that his services had been terminated. He also averred that his pay for the month of January, 1981 was credited to his personal account,' but later on unlawfully withdrawn and that from Ist February, 1981 to 16th March, 1981 he was kept waiting for further posting order. The petition was opposed by the appellant. In the written state ment it was contended that the respondent was recruited as Godown Keeper on daily wages and that the salary for the month of January, 1981 was not disbursed to him as he had remained absent from duty. The respondent examined Muhammad Ali Jaffary, Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank, Sukhha Bosal, who deposed from the attendance register that from 28th February, 1980 to 31st January, 1981 the respondent's presence was marked . as Recovery Assistant. The witness further stated that the respondent's signatures were present in the cash book from 11th August, 1980 to 14th December, 1980 as he had worked during that period as a Cashier. On behalf of the appellant Ghulam Jillani appeared as P. W. 1 before the lower Court. He stated that the respondent had been working in the bank without any break and that be was asked to appear in the written test for which special permission had been sought by him but he did not appear and for this reason his services had been dispensed with. No written order was brought on the file.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the respon dent did not appear in the test, therefore, his services were terminated. Learned counsel was asked to show the relevant rule under which passing of test examination may be necessary, but he failed either to show the rule or to make any reference to any rule. Since the respondent has completed the period of probation, he had become permanent and his services could not be terminated verbally without any reason. This is not the case of the appellant that the post had been abolished and the respondent had become surplus. A written order of termination is to be recorded and reasons are to be given, so that if the order of termination is challenged, the Court may be in a position to see whether the reasons for termination are cogent and sufficient. Paragraph 234 of the First Wage Commission Award, no doubt, authorises the appointing authority to terminate the services of an employee after the expiry of the period of probation on giving him one month's notice or pays in lieu thereof, but it does not say that no order in writing need be passed, nor any reason be given. The termination was not even according to para graph 234, because neither one month's notice was given, nor one month's pay in lieu of notice was offered. Since no reason was given, nor any written order was passed, the order of termination was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.