1976 PLP 356 (PLC)

P L J 1975 S C l ref. The above cited four appeals are preferred against an order dated 15-4-1975 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Court, Rawalpindi on petitions of the respondents filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for their re-instatement. Petitions were accepted, hence these appeals.

2. As a common question of law and facts is involved in all these appeals, I have therefore proposed to dispose them of by one order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

4. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that all the four respon dents had a service record of not more than three months with the appellant concern as conductors of buses. There were complaints of miscon duct against all the four respondents. Management taking them to be probationers instead of holding a domestic enquiry into their misconduct chose to terminate their services without one month's notice pay as required under section 7 of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961.

5. This section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 was repealed and in its place through Road Transport Workers Ordinance (Amendment) Ordinance 1974 a new section has been substituted. Through this amended section Standing Orders 12 to 15 are made applicable to the employees of the Road Transport. Standing Order No. 1 which defines category of workers and clause 2 of Standing Order 12 are not made applicable. In Standing Order No. 1 probationer is defined and in clause 2 of Standing Order 12, it is laid down that no probationer shall be entitled to any notice if his services are terminated by the employer. It becomes clear that workers of the Road Transport are not to be categorised as permanent, temporary or probationer. So it means, they are to be treated as permanent from the date of their appointments and as such services of all the employees of Road Transport Board cannot be dispensed with without giving explicit reasons.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that while choosing to terminate the services of the respondents Management did give reasons and it is to the fact that work of the respondents is not satisfactory. This reason can bold good only in case of probationers or otherwise temporary workers. But this: is not a sufficient reason in cases of permanent workers. In case of permanent workers sufficient and explicit reason would be retrenchment for recession in business or old age of the employee. A permanent worker cannot be thrown out on the pretext of his unsatisfactory work.

7. Mr. Sadullah Mumtaz learned counsel for respondent Mr. Muhammad Zareen has placed reliance on P L J 1'975 S C 1, wherein it has been held by his Lordship Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman and two others that grounds of unsatisfactory work and conduct do not cast any aspersion and do not attach any stigma to a worker but if record of the case shows that there are allegations of corruption also then enquiry is must. This is the admitted position of the parties that there were complaints of corruption or inefficiency against the respondents, Respondents being permanent workers could not be thrown out just on the ground that their work was unsatisfactory.

8. In that view of the matter, I reject the appeal with the direction that enquiry may be held against the misconduct of the respondents. Pay ment of back wages would depend upon the result of enquiry. Appeals are disposed off accordingly.