2001 PLP 183 (PLC)

2. The facts, giving rise to the above appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant was employed on 1‑4‑1987 as Chowkidar for three months on probation whereafter, he was confirmed by letter at page 27 of R&P. His service was, however, terminated on 7‑4‑1996 by letter appearing at page 31, on the ground, as stated in Paras. 1 and 2, which are reproduced as under:‑‑ "The Company's immovable properties at Batch Island, Clifton, has been sold and possession of the same handed over to the purchaser. Due to sale of the said properties job/post of 3 of the company's Chowkidar has become surplus to our requirement and we regret to inform you that being junior affected Chowkidar it is not possible for us to continue with your services. You being among the 3 junior most Chowkidars in the company, your services are terminated with effect from closing of office hours on Sunday, the 7th April, 1996. As per your terms and conditions of employment, you will be paid 30 days' salary in lieu of notice period. "

3. A grievance notice was served by the appellant, which was duly replied. Thereupon, a grievance application under section 25‑A, was filed in May, 1996 before the learned Sindh Labour Court No.5 at Karachi. After recording the evidence, led by the parties, the said grievance application was dismissed, as stated earlier.

4. Mr. Latif Saghar, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that following four points: Firstly, that the learned Presiding Officer ignored the confirmation letter, dated 12‑7‑1987. Referring to clause (c) in particular, it was submitted by him that the appellant could be transferred from one Department to the other Department of the company and from its allied companies or from one place of duty to another place of duty in any establishment of the company or its allied companies or from one place of duty to another place of duty throughout Pakistan. This term of appointment, at the time of confirmation, could not help the appellant as he was all through Chowkidar, posted mostly at the bungalow situate at Bath Island where executive of the company used to reside. The building consisted of several flats. It has not been shown in the evidence at all that the appellant was transferred from one Department to another Department or any company allied to the respondent. So far the purpose of section 25‑A, he was a Chowkidar, remained as Chowkidar and his services were terminated as Chowkidar.

5. Secondly, the learned counsel also took a plea of mala fides on the part of the management as the appellant had made an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming wages for overtime, admittedly in 1989. It is admitted by the counsel that at the time when the application under section 25‑A was filed, the case before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was pending. Except making a statement as to mala fides nothing has been brought on record before the learned Presiding Officer, therefore, this plea has no nexus with the termination order, passed after seven years by the respondent? company.

6. Thirdly, learned counsel submitted that the termination order has been issued in violation of Standing Order 12(3). I do not think, the termination letter, issued by the company, is in violation of Standing Order 12(3) because the service has been terminated on the ground that immovable property where the appellant was posted as Chowkidar, was sold out by the company and hence, his services were no more required. So far as the ground, urged as violative of Standing Order 13 is concerned it has also been stated in the said termination letter that there were three Chowkidars, who became surplus including the appellant and, therefore, the services of all the three were terminated.

7. Mr. Masood Khan learned counsel for the respondent, referred to seniority list of Chowkidars, Annexure R/2 at page 61 of R&P which shows that the appellant's name appears at Serial No.3. In all, there were five Chowkidars. The services of other two, appearing at Serial Nos.4, and 5 were also terminated. In reply to the submission, made by the learned counsel for the appellant that in all there were twenty-?seven Chowkidars, Mr. Masood Khan referred to the cross-examination of the appellant himself in the Labour Court at page 81 of R&P, wherein he stated that: "It is correct that the respondents have sold out the flat of Bath Island. It is correct that Kushal Khan and Mir Bux Khan are not in service. It is correct that these are two chowkidars in the company. It is correct that these two chowkidars are senior to me. It is correct that I used to work as Chowkidar." In view of the above admission of the appellant himself, I agree with the finding of the learned Presiding Officer that there is no violation of Standing. Order 12(3) or 13, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

8. Lastly Mr. Latif Saghar submits that the work of Chowkidar is still available with the Company. In reply to this Mr. Masood Khan, referred to the admission of the appellant in his cross‑examination that there are two Chowkidars in the company and that they are senior to him.

9. I, therefore, find no force in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./7/K(L. Trib.) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.