1970 PLP 34 (PLC)

S. 30‑Termina tion of worker (not office‑bearer of Union) on grounds of mis conduct not connected with pending industrial dispute‑Does not attract provisions of S. 30‑Bus conductors dismissed on charge of procuring forged orders of re‑instatement‑Termination, in circum stances, held, simpliciter and rnere pendency of an industrial dispute at relevant time would not amount to violation of S. 30. Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellants. Nasirul Hasan for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 12th March 1969. I propose to dispose of these three appeals by a common order, as the point of law in all the three appeals that requires consideration is the same. All the three appellants were Conductors in the employment of the Road Transport Corpora tion. They were dismissed from service on various dates. 2. It would appear from Exh. R. W. 1/3, that Noor Hasan, Jumma Khan and Muhammad Qasim were re‑instated under orders which had been forged. The District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad, therefore, terminated their services by his order dated the 24th July 1967. These appeals can be disposed of on the short ground that there was no contravention of section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (herein after called the repealed Ordinance). A workman could be dismissed, who is not an office‑bearer of the Union, on the ground of misconduct not connected with the Industrial Dispute. In the present case, however, three appellants, namely, Noor Hasan, Jumma Khan and Muhammad Qasim have not been dismissed on the ground of misconduct. When the District Manager came to know that their re‑employment was under orders which were forged, he simply terminated their services on one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice. This would appear from para.5 of the reply of the District Manager. Termination of services simpliciter cannot be said to be any violation of section 30, of the repealed Ordinance. The appellants were not office‑bearers of the Union. 3. The order under which the appellants were re‑instated were proved to be forged ones. The Chairman, Road Transport Corporation and his officer were the best people to state as to whether these orders were forged or genuine. Mr: Zulfiqar Khan, Director, Planning and Evaluation, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, and Mr. Muhammad Jalali, at present working as an Accountant with the Road Transport Corporation, have been produced to prove that the signatures on the orders of re‑instatement of the appellants were not under their signatures, The appellants have not alleged any motive against Mr. Zulfiqar Khan or Mr. Mahmood Jalali as to why they would depose falsely against them. Similarly, no ground has been alleged against the District Manager as to why he would terminate the services without any ground. I am satisfied that the orders of their re‑instatement were forged ones. 4. I would, however, dismiss these z appeals mainly on the ground that there was no. contravention of section 30 of the repealed Ordinance. The appellants being not office‑bearers of the Union and if their services were terminated on a ground not connected with the Industrial Disputes Ordinance with out the permission of the Industrial Court, the mere pendency of an industrial dispute would not amount to the violation of section 30 of the repealed Ordinance. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.