1971 PLP 433 (PLC)

The applicant, on behalf of Abdul Rasheed, examined four witnesses including Abdul Rasheed himself. Abdul Rasheed in his statement on oath states that he was initially appointed for three months and it was disclosed on him that he would be made permanent after working for three months satisfactorily. He worked for 22 months. During the period of his service he was not charge‑sheeted. He further says that no letter was issued by the Company with regard to the extension of his services from time to time, On termination of his services, he made a representation to the Company, whereupon the Company offered Rs. 500.00 in addition to Rs. 620.00 which were already offered in termination letter. He did not accept this offer and insisted for re‑instatement in service. He also states that when he joined the Company there were two persons working as permanent employees in the same section. (II) Mr. South Gate, the Managing Director of the Com pany has admitted in his deposition that the Company had offered three alternate suggestions i.e.:‑‑ (i) An ex gratia payment of Mr. Abdul Rasheed Turner of Rs. 1,500.00 in full and final settlement of all his claims against the Company ; ' (ii) The matter be referred to Arbitration : and (iii) The employee be re‑instated with effect from 1st October 1970 if he satisfactorily passes a trade test. He further states that Abdul Rasheed was not terminated on account of inefficiency. (III) Abdul Karim Khan, is not a material witness for the disposal of the case, hence his evidence is not discussed. (IV) Mr. Naseem Khan, the Executive Director of the Company, was produced as a last witness on behalf of the applicant. He fully corroborated with the statement of the applicant, but differed on the point of termination of services and permanent employment of Abdul Rasheed, Turner. The Company/Respondent examined, their Manager of Manufacturing Section. He stated that Abdul Rasheed was appointed temporarily on central lathe machine as it was an experimental work. On importation of an automatic machine, the work of Abdul Rasheed. Turner, was finished. Consequently he terminated the services of Abdul Rasheed and offered ex gratis payment of Rs. 620.00 as special case. He admits that by virtue of his length of service. Abdul Rasheed acquired the status of permanent employee but as per record of service maintained by the Company he was a temporary worker. He produced salary sheets for different months Exh. D/I to

4. He also admits that Abdul, Rasheed has rendered services to the Company with an unblamish record. His period of service was 22 months. In cross‑examination, he admits that no, no letter was issued with regard to the extension of services of Abdul Rasheed from time to time. The witness further admits that he did employ a temporary Turner after the termination of Abdul Rasheed. He also says that be did not call for Abdul Rasheed when the Company wanted to appoint another Turner in his place. On close scrutiny of the evidence it become clear that Abdul Rasheed admittedly remained in the employment of the Company from 24th July 1968 to 20th May 1970. During this period the Company had no grievance of whatsoever nature against him and he had never been charge‑sheeted on any account. Mr. A. Q. Malik, the Manufacturing Manager has admitted that Abdul Rasheed was not intimated about the period of his service at the time when he was appointed and thereafter no letter was issued for the extension of service period from time to time. Abdul Rasheed has acquired permanent workers status by virtue of his length of service; but as per record he was temporary which indicates the intention of the Company. I heard the arguments of both the representatives of the parties. The contention of the Union is that as per evidence on record. Abdul Rasheed is permanent employee sod the job on which he was working was of permanent nature. Under the circumstances and facts of the case the question of termination of Abdul Rasheed is not proper and just. Hence the Applicant/ Abdul Rasheed is entitled for re‑instatement with all benefits with retrospective effect. On the contrary, the representative of the Company mainly stressed on the point of termination of an employee under Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, He says that the employer has power to terminate any employee irrespective of that whether the employee is a temporary of permanent worker by virtue of the aforesaid Ordinance. It support of his contention he relied on the authorities mentioned below: I have gone through both the authorities. The facts and circumstances of these cases are different and under such circumstances, the employer has full power to terminate his employee either of a temporary nature or of a permanent. As such these authorities do not apply to the case in dispute. The Union disagrees with the above contentions. I find much force in the Union's contention, because it is an admitted fact that one of the three suggestions made by the Company, was that the Company was ready and willing to re‑instate Abdul Rasheed, if he passes trade test satisfactorily. It has also come in evidence that after the termination of services of Abdul Rasheed, the Company has employed another Turner in his place. This admitted fact goes to prove that the job on which Abdul Rasheed was working was not of a temporary nature, and the job is still existing. In view of the above, I hold that the case, of Abdul Rasheed Turner is not a case of termination under Order XII of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, whereas it falls under Orders XIII and XIV of said Ordinance as it is an illegal retrenchment. Therefore, I award, re‑instatement of Abdul Rasheed Turner with retrospective effect, continuity of service and full benefits of leave bonus, provident fund etc.