1997 PLP 443 (PLC)

‑‑,Ss 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑‑Workmen‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Employee who initially was appointed as highly skilled worker, was promoted as a foreman, but his services were terminated simpliciter without a show‑cause notice and without mentioning reasons for such termination on ground that employee was no longer a workman having been promoted as an officer‑‑‑Employee actually was working as a "Fork Lift Operator" and was not performing any supervisory duties as "Manager" or "Deputy Manager" ‑‑‑Employee vas not issued any job description and he never sanctioned leave or passed any order on any worker as its subordinate‑‑‑Labour Court in circumstances had rightly concluded that employee continued to be a workman within meaning of S.2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and order of termination was also rightly set aside as services of employee were terminated without any reasons for such termination. Dilawar Hussain for Appellants. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1996. These two appeals are directed against the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the petitions of respondents Mujeebur Rehman and Moinuddin filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement and back benefits.

2. The facts regarding Mujeebur Rehman in brief are that the respondent was initially appointed as Highly Skilled Worker‑I in the Steel Mills. He was afterwards promoted as a foreman in the executive cadre on a salary of Rs.10,000 per month. During his period as foreman his services were terminated simpliciter without a show‑cause notice and without mentioning the reasons for termination. The plea taken by the Steel Mills was that the respondent was no longer a worker having been promoted as an officer. It has on the other hand been argued that mere change of designation of a worker is of no consequence. That the respondent was actually working as a Fork Lift Operator and he was not performing any supervisory duties as Manager or Deputy Manager. He was not issued any job description and he was not sanctioning leave or passing any orders on any worker as his subordinates. The learned Labour Court therefore came to the conclusion that the respondent continued to be a workman within the meaning of the I.R.O. and since his services have been terminated simpliciter without any reasons for the termination, the termination order was set aside and he was directed A to be reinstated with full back benefits.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and I find the order of the Labour Court to be reasonable and proper and there are hardly any grounds for setting aside his decision. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

4. The facts and circumstances of Appeal No. KAR‑65 of 1996 in respect of worker Moinuddin are the same and his services were also terminated in similar manner. This order therefore will dispose of the appeal of Pakistan Steel Mills against Moinuddin also which too is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./165/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.