1988 PLP 387 (PLC)

Munawwar Ghani for Appellant. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant company against an impugned order, dated 8-1-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court NO.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits under section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969. 2: Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been appointed as Boiler Operator in the appellant establishment and was working as a permanent employee on the assurance that he will be issued a proper appointment letter. However the respondent claimed that when he did not receive the same, he sent application to the Principal Executive with a copy to Mr. Haq Nawaz, Chairman, Pakistan Steel Mills resulting in his verbal termination of service by the Superintending Engineer of the appellant organization in violation of S.O. 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He, therefore, filed his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The appellant organization resisted the grievance petition of the respondent before the learned Labour Court on the ground that the respondent was employed on a work of supervision and his emoluments were more than Rs.800. Therefore, on completion of his job on temporary assignment he was terminated from service. The appellant establishment further submitted that the respondent was engaged as a temporary Boiler Operator from 11-4-1985 and a formal appointment letter was also issued to him on 4-7-1985 hence he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which he was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross-examined before the learned Labour Court. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Munawwar Ghani, the learned Advocate for the appeallant establishment and the respondent in person, and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset. I would observe here that it is an admitted position on behalf of the appellant establishment that they had issued a Bus pass to the respondent showing him as a permanent workmen's. In view of this clear and specific admission by the appellant management, I would hold that the respondent was a permanent workman and the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were very well applicable to him. In view of the evidence on record, the contention of the appellant management that the said Bus Pass was issued to the respondent by mistake, is nothing, but, an afterthought only to justify the unlawful action against the respondent workman. In view of this, I would also hold that the respondent was a workman permanently employed in the appellant establishment and he was mandatorily entitled to be issued a proper appointment letter mentioning the terms and conditions of his employment. Therefore, termination of services of the respondent workman as no longer required without assigning any reason is completely in violation of the relevant Labour Laws and also the settled principles of Law, hence, could not be sustained, I, therefore, find nothing wrong in. the impugned order to be interfered with.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent workman is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but, with a modification in the impugned order that he will be entitled to 25% (twenty-five per cent) back benefits only. A. E. /1105/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.