1988 PLP 385 (PLC)

Munawwar Ghani for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant company against an impunged 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 since 11‑4‑1985 on the assurance that he will be issued a proper appointment letter. However, the respondent claimed that when he did not receive the same his services were terminated on the charge of alleged miscounduct. The respondent claimed that as the alleged charge of miscounduct was not established and the termination was under section 12 (5) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, therefore he submitted a grievance notice and thereafter filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969.

3. The appellant establishment 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, he did not come within the definition of a workman to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. The appellant establishment further submitted that the respondent was appointed as temporary Boiler Operator from 11‑4‑1985, and a formal appointment letter was issued to him on 4‑7‑1985.

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

5. I have heard Mr. Munawwar Ghani, the learned Advocate for the appellant 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 workman. 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 on the alleged charge of misconduct without`, Laws cannot be sustained hence, set aside. Reliance is also placed on a case reported in P L D 1980 (S.C.) at page

323. 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.h./1104/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.