1997 PLP 185 (PLC)

Malik Abdul Hameed Nasir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st October, 1996. Muhammad Alain was working as Accounts Assistant, with the, Pakistan WAPDA Foundation Workshop, Lahore, and his services were terminated with effect from 31‑3‑1994. He successfully challenged the said order by having recourse to the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore which Court accepted his grievance petition, filed under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and set aside on 14‑5‑1995 the establishment's aforesaid order. The employer has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. Respondent's ouster from service was effected in a summary manner, without observance of requisite legal formalities, according to him; but the employer maintains that as he was in service on contract, was indicated by the appointment letter Annexure ' B' (file of appeal), and as his probation period was fixed as six months, he was liable to removal from service at any time during this period without any show‑cause notice even. His appointment had been made for one year on 13‑6‑1993 (Annexure 'B'). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent could not claim any lien or a vested right to keep on holding the assignment, the employment being, contractual in nature. It is also submitted that the work/performance of the employee throughout was unsatisfactory, and he also used to be absent from duty habitually, and there was thus justification for the employer to have dispensed with his services. The respondent, according to the appellant, could not claim to be a workman, and the establishment being that of a welfare institution, aid of labour laws could not be invoked by the employee, by having recourse to a Labour Court. While addressing his superior, the Assistant Manager, Base Workshop P.W.F., Faisalabad, respecting the work and conduct of Muhammad Alain, through a letter dated 5‑3‑1994, Annexure 'C' (this Court's file), had said, towards the end, that it was a commercial organisation, which Mr. Alain was serving, but such a disobedient, rude, irresponsible and unwilling worker could not be retained and even tolerated. There is thus no denial of the fact that it is a kind of 'industry', of which Muhammad Alain was an employee, operating as a worker, and not holding any managerial or supervisory post.

3. A perusal of the document Annexure ' C' gives an impression that probably the Assistant Manager had become somewhat 'personal' and was keen to get rid of Muhammad Alain, as early as possible. In quite an odd and unusual manner, his services were dispensed with. Letter Annexure ' D' (this Court's file), telling Muhammad Alain, that his services were being terminated with effect from 1‑3‑1994 (F.N.), and on expiry of one month notice period, the services would stand finally terminated with effect from 31‑3‑1994 (A.N.) was intended to be operative retrospective. The superiors seemed to have become vindictive against the official, who despatched the grievance notice on 5‑4‑1994 and then filed the grievance petition in the Labour Court on 8‑6‑1994. Notice thereof was served on the employer on 23‑6‑1994, and, on the same date, the very post was abolished vide Annexure ' E' (file of appeal). Document Annexure ' C' furnishes proof of the fact that the Assistant Manager had become unduly touchy about the attitude of Muhammad Alain, who had allegedly "disobeyed him (the Assistant Manager) in rude manner, although he had subsequently carried out the job assigned to him half‑heartedly". The official remained absent from duty just for two days, 19th and 20th February, 1994. He applied for twelve days' leave on 2‑3‑1994. It has been described as, "on leaving behind an application he again disappeared, on 2‑3‑1994, making a request for twelve days' leave". By way of the same communication, the Assistant Manager made a request to the Manager for posting of a substitute (in place of Muhammad Alain), at the earliest. This development would demonstrate that the post was subsisting, although the assignment had suffered in work allegedly owing to unwilling attitude of the incumbent (Muhammad Alain). Only about a year before, on 13‑6‑1993 (Annexure ' A' of this file) the Managing Director had accorded approval for creation of two posts for maintenance of accounts of P.W.F. Vehicle Repair Workshop, Faisalabad, the same being Accounts Assistant and Accounts Clerk, carrying respectively BPS‑11 and BPS‑

7. Abolition of the post appeared to have been done in undue haste by the establishment to justify its refusal to take back Muhammad Alain within its fold.

4. As respondent before the Labour Court the foundation had not taken care to contest the matter seriously and had not submitted the written statement, despite last opportunity having been provided for the purpose. Resultantly the defence was struck off on 14‑5‑1995, when the grievance petition was allowed, as there was available on record no material in rebuttal of the assertions of the employee. I agree, to some extent, with the learned counsel for the establishment that although the appellant organisation, respondent before the Labour Court, had lost all chances of putting in defence, the Labour Court ought to have applied its mind to the pleadings of the petitioner and called upon him to make his statement as a witness. Reasons should have been given and findings recorded, as regards soundness of the stand‑point of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned one is not a speaking order, as such.

5. It is to be noted that a Labour Court need not necessarily conduct itself in the manner and style of a Civil Court, and service matters of workmen, involving their livelihood and welfare, may be dealt with in a little summary fashion. I am satisfied that ultimate ends of justice have not been frustrated and interests of the organisation have not gravely been prejudiced because of the manner adopted by the Labour Court in examining the issue in no good detail. Within my own sphere, I have discussed the matter in somewhat elaborate‑manner, and I have a sense of satisfaction that I have in no way endeavoured to be unkind and unfair towards the establishment's cause. I do not think that there is warrant for remand of the case to the lower Court, with a direction that a detailed decision be rendered on enabling the establishment to make its submissions in writing, in the form of reply or written statement, and then calling upon the parties to adduce evidence. The exercise would unnecessarily procrastinate the proceedings, without serving any useful purpose, and in turn it will prolong the period of unemployment and accentuate the agency of the poor employee.

6. I would endorse the order of the Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal of the Organisation, but with no order as to costs. A.A./862/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.