1984 PLP 1097 (PLC(CS))

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. O. 12(3)‑Termination of service‑Badli conductor in Road Transport Corporation Refused duty orally ‑ Contention that there was no work for him‑Original incumbent against whose post such Badli conductor appointed not reported to have returned Termination order, in circumstances, held, illegal for that reason and also violative of S. O. 12(3) being not in writing‑Re instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3). Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1983. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 6th July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The appellant was employed as Badli conductor vide appointment order Exh. P. 6, dated 14th November, 1981. The bus conducted by him was checked and it was alleged that he had received fare from two passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Reply to Form T.T.‑40 was taken from him but without the issuance of any charge‑sheet and holding any enquiry into the allegation, he was refused duty orally. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the point that the substituted section 7 of the Road Transport Ordinance does not include Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, so there cannot be any concept of Badli employee as contemplated by Standing Order

1. He has also argued that Badli employees are employed by P. U. T. C. on work charged basis, therefore, they are paid for the days they work and thus the respondent was not entitled to back benefits. He says that there was no work, so the respondent was not given duty. This is true that Standing Order 1 is not mentioned in section 7 of the Road Transport Ordinance but still the respondent was employed as Badli. So, he was a Badli. 1n order of appointment Exh. P. 6, it is nowhere directed that the appellant was being employed on work‑charged basis. Apart from it no such point was raised in the written statement, so it cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. This too is wrong that as there was no work the appellant was not given duty. Firstly, there is no evidence to this effect and secondly it has not been shown that the employee in whose absence the respondent was employed as Badli was holding a temporary post. A Badli is appointed, according to Standing Order 1, when a permanent employee is temporarily absent. In the absence of evidence; therefore, it will be taken that the post was permanent. This being so, no question arises that there was no work. So, the respondent was rightly allowed back benefits also. The order of termination was illegal, inasmuch as till the original incumbent of the post had come back, the respondent was entitled to remain in service and it has not been shown that he had come back. The order is illegal for this reason also that it violated the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) as it was not in writing giving explicit reasons.

3. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. A. E. Appeal dismissed.