1984 PLP 157 (PLC)

(b) Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑ Temporary employee (Railway employee)‑Termination without written order for good reasons‑Illegal‑Principle of natural justice‑Demands that every employee temporary or permanent may be terminated (only) by a written order giving reasons. H. R. Haider for Appellant. Hamid Mahmood Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th August, 1983. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 1st December, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appel lant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was employed as lady reservation clerk vide Exh. P‑1/R‑1, dated 13th May, 1980 temporarily in the vacancy of the Miss Saeeda Iffat who bad been promoted. She was on 10th May, 1981 refus ed duty without the issuance of any written order of termination. She was also afterwards appointed as badli in the leave vacancies. The learned lower Court dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground that she was appointed as substitute ire the leave vacancies, so had no right. This view is factually wrong. The very appointment order Exh. P‑I/R‑1 shows that the vacancy was caused by the promotion of Miss Saeeda Iffat and was not a leave vacancy. The word `substitute' no doubt is used in Exh. P‑A. Badli is always appointed in a leave vacancy or when any permanent employee is out of duty temporarily. Miss Saeeda A Iffat was not on leave but had been promoted. There is no evidence that she was even reverted, So the vacancy was a permanent one. It made no difference that after being terminated from the vacancy caused by the promotion of Miss Saeeda Iffat the appellant was accommodated in leave vacancy twice, because the first termination was illegal. However, the appellant did not acquire any right over the vacancy caused by the promotion of Miss Saeeda Iffat, because she was appointed only tem porarily till further orders and not permanently. She was, therefore, not a probationer but only a temporary employee but she could not be termi nated without written order of termination for good reasons Ian; termi nation is illegal only for the reason that she was terminated orally and not by a written order. No doubt, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to Railway but the learned counsel for the respondent has not shown any rule that a temporary employee can be terminated without a written order without giving any reasons. Even in Exh. P‑I/R‑1 it is not recorded that the appellant could be terminated without any written order and without giving any reasons. Principles of natural justice demand that every employee temporary or permanent may be terminated by a written order giving reasons. After all the employees concerned must know the reasons so that be could challenge them if they are wrong or unjustified. It appears that it escaped the notice of the learned trial Judge while perusing Exh. P‑1 that it was mentioned in it that the vacancy was caused by the promotion of Miss Saeeda Iffat and not that she had gone on leave. Since the word `substitute' was used wrongly in Exh. P‑1, it misled the learned lower Court we have to consider the real facts and not the phraseology used wrongly.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service as Lady Reservation Clerk in the vacancy of Miss Saeeda Iffat. As the initial appointment of the appellant against the said vacancy was temporary, it will after rein statement remain temporary till it is regularized by the employer. A. B. Appeal accepted.