1995 PLP 626 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑‑S.O. 12(3)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated by employers for the reason that same were no longer required‑‑ Order terminating services was challenged by employee on two grounds, firstly that services being no longer required, was not a reason contemplated under S.O. 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and secondly that order of termination was mala fide‑‑‑So far as first ground was concerned, requirement of law was that reasons for termination should be stated, but it was nowhere stated that reasons should be proper or justified‑‑‑Termination of employee was termination simpliciter and it could be‑that termination was for reasons of reorganization or to affect economy‑‑‑Termination of employee for real on that his services were no longer required, thus was not unjustified especially when employee was offered notice pay and other legal dues‑‑‑So far as second ground of challenge was concerned, burden of proof regarding mala fides was on employee, but employee had not sufficiently discharged that burden‑‑ Employee though was a workman and his grievance petition was maintainable. but he having failed to show that termination of his services was illegal or mala fide, no interference was called for. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi For Appellant. S. Raza Abbas Naqvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1995, This appeal' arises from the order of the IIIrd Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance application of applicant zaliman Shah was ' rejected on the ground that he was not a workman.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant Zaliman Shah was appointed as Chowkidar on 14‑4‑1986 on Rs.800 per month as his wages. He was thereafter designated as Head Chowkidar although he continued to draw minimum monthly wages. On 31‑1‑1993 by an order in writing the services of the appellant were terminated. The reason given in the order was that his services were no longer required. He served the management with a grievance notice and filed grievance petition before the .Labour Court. Pending the proceedings the grievance petition was amended and it was added that the order of termination was mala fide as he had called a meeting of the Chowkidars at his residence. The learned Labour Court held that the head watchman was not a workman as his duties were of supervisory nature. On the point of mala fide the Labour Court found that this allegation had not been proved but the petition was dismissed on the ground that the termination of the applicant from service was neither illegal nor mala fide the application was not maintainable because he was riot a workman. ' .

3. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has pointed out from evidence of Arif Ali, Labour Officer of the respondent Company that it has been admitted that "it is correct that the applicant used to perform the duty in shift. It is correct that whenever any Chowkidar used to remain absent the applicant used to perform the duty in his place." The appellant was initially appointed as a Chowkidar on Rs.800 per month and later on he was merely designated as head chowkidar could not be said to have been transferred from the post of worker to that of employer or an officer. He continued to work in the shifts as chowkidar, opening and closing the .gate and checking the gate passes as stated by him in evidence. Under the circumstances the appellant will be a workman and not an officer and his grievance petition was maintainable.

4. It has next been contended that the termination order was illegal as under section 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance reasons for termination are to be mentioned in the order. The termination order which has been filed in the proceedings shows that the services of the appellant were terminated for the reason that they were no longer required. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that services being no longer required is not a reason contemplated under section 12(3) of the Standing Orders. The Tribunal has not however to go into the circumstances and causes resulting in termination. The requirement of the law is that reasons should be stated but it is nowhere mentioned that the reasons should be proper or‑justifiable. It is termination simpliciter and it may be that the termination was for reasons of re -organisation or to effect economy. Lastly the point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of termination was mala fide because a meeting of Chowkidars was held by (he appellant at his house. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate foe the management that this point was not mentioned in the grievance notice that the order was mala fide on account of any union activities, that it was an afterthought. Even in the grievance petition this fact was not mentioned but was added later on by way of amendment of the pleading. The burden of proof regarding mala fides is on the worker and he has not sufficiently discharged that burden.

5. It therefore follows that although the appellant was a workman and his grievance application was maintainable, yet he has not been able to show that the termination of his service was illegal or mala fide. It was termination simpliciter and he was offered the Notice Pay and other legal dues.

6. As a result of the above discussions, the appeal stands dismissed. H.B.T./2472/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.