1978 PLP 249 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). S. Os. 12 (3), (5) & 15‑Reinstatement‑Services of workman termi nated for his post having been abolished as a result of re‑organization of establishment‑Fact of abolition of job of workman for want of requirement not proved‑Re‑instatement with back benefits ordered. Appellant in person Nemo for Respondent Manzoor Hussain ex‑steward Shezan Residence Multan has come up in appeal against the order dated 25th November 1974, passed by the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan by which his petition under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. for re‑instatement in service of the respondent Company was dismissed. His services were allegedly terminated on account of reorganisa tion of the establishment of the respondent‑Company. The appellant was intimated through order of the Management dated 28th August 1974 (Photo stat Exh. R1) that due to the reorganisation and to meet the business requirements the Management who constrained to abolish the post of steward resulting in his termination of service with allowance of dues permissible under the law including the notice pay. The appellant being aggrieved of this order of termination moved the learned lower Court for his reinstate ment and his petition was dismissed on the ground that by termination of the services of the appellant no guaranteed or secured right of his was infringed by virtue of the action having been taken due to the re‑organisation of the establishment of the respondent Company. It was maintained by the appellant in his petition in the learned Lower Court that he was initially appointed As Room Waiter on 1st March 1973, and was confirmed in his service with effect from lot September 1973. and that his termination has been ordered by the Management due to his Trade Union activities as a member of the Shezan Residence Staff Union. Manzoor Hussain appellant examined himself in support of his petition while Munawer Ahmad Khan, Manager, Shezan Residence appeared on behalf of the Management to support the action taken by the Management. He simply stated that the appellant was no longer required by the Manage ment Steward/Waiter Incharge and therefore his job was abolished as useless where as he did not controvert the fact given in the petition that he was permanent employee of the respondent‑Company. No document was produced in evidence in the learned lower Court making out a case that the job of steward/waiter Incharge bad become redundant and required abolition. The mere mentioning this fact in the termination order alone cannot be regarded as final and acceptable to prove the actual position to face of the allegation of the appellant that be was simply victimised for his Union activities. It is to be noted that in case the tact mentioned in the termination order in regard to the requirement of the job be regarded b final and conclusive proof of the tact then any employee of the Industry, whatever his status and right as permanent employee may be can be easily ousted on the plea of the want of requirement and innocent workers can be victimised without any enquiry into the differences between the workers and the Management. The construction of the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, cannot be made in contravention of the provision of Standing Order 12(5). Under the latter provision the services of even a temporary Workman cannot be terminated on the ground of misconduct without a regular enquiry under Standing Order 15. This being so the Management can scarcely be in a position to terminate a permanent work man against any misconduct under the camouflage of termination for want of requirement if both the provisions of the said Standing Order are to be consistently construed. It therefore becomes necessary for any industrial Management to first make out a case at domestic level regarding the termination or abolition of any job of a worker for want of requirement. If it is not done then any permanent worker who cannot be otherwise terminated on i account of any allegation of misconduct against him can easily be ousted without any enquiry under the guise of non‑requirement for some reason or the other to be mentioned in the termination order alone. The point under discussion was argued by the learned counsel for the parties on the last date and the respondent‑Management sought the permission of this Court to put in additional evidence which was given against non‑objection from the other side. Today none his represented the respond ent Management nor any application has so far been put in for the admission of any document or adjournment of the case despite the party having been awaited for a long time. In view of what has been said above and the unjustifiable absence of the party I am of the considered view that the action taken against the appellant was not valid and must be set aside for the ends of justice to prevail. In the result the impugned order being sot aside the appeal accepted and the respondent‑Management directed to re‑instate the appellant with all his back benefits within a period of one week.