1978 PLP 537 (PLC)

Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioner. Fateh Muhammad Khan for Respondent Dates of Institution t 4th February, 1977. Nowshad Khan has filed the present petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his re‑instatement and also for back benefits and wages against Messrs Hashtnagar Industries. The facts alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was employed in the respondent establishment as Fabricator since 6th March 1975, as a permanent workman. He was verbally dismissed from service on 27th December 1976, for no reason at all. The petitioner claims to have served a grievance notice on the respondent but the respondent did not give reply. The petitioner has filed the present ' petition but the procedure prescribed under sections 12 and 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, was not followed hence the order of dismissal/, termination from service is illegal. This petition has been contested by the respondent who filed the written statement on 28th March, 1977. The second point that it hoe been raised in the arguments is a to whether the petitioner is a workman as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and second as to whether the petitioner had or had not served a grievance notice as contemplated under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Arguments heard and record perused. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was employed on the basis of a contract for two years by the respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is as the petitioner was contractual worker and does not fall within any of the category given in Schedule of section 2‑G of Standing Order and also does not fall within the definition of workman as given in Standing Orders Ordinance, section 2(i) of 1968, nor he is a workmen, contemplated under section 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance. Worker as defined under section 2 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 means that any person employed in industry or commercial establishment to any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward. The petitioner falls within the scope of this definition. As regard the contractual nature of work the interpretation of permanent workman is classified in Schedule of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He falls within the scope of permanent workman notwithstanding the nature of his contractual work because hr's work was likely to last more than 9 months and for that reason he would be) classified as a permanent workman in respondent establishment. The second point that has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in this context is that the petitioner is not a workman because he supervised the work of four other workers working under him but the respondent has not been able to prove that the petitioner had the power to hire and fire the workers working under him hence he is held to be al worker as defined under section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The second point that has been vehemently argued at the bar is that the petitioner had served no grievance notice on the respondent. The petitioner has In his statement stated that he had served the notice and has placed a copy of this on the file but has not got it exhibited. He has placed the postal receipt and the A. D. Card Exh. P. W. 1/1., vide which he sent this grievance notice to the respondents. Moreover the respondent has in the cross‑examination of the petitioner confronted him with the original notice which means that respondent were in the possession of the original grievance notice otherwise this confrontation would not be possible. Now the order of dismissal/termination of service is not in writing and does not disclose any reason for dismissal/termination of the petitioner. Hence it is in violation of Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The procedure provided in Standing Order 12 and Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 have not been complied with and in view of the above discussion, I hold that the dismissal/termination of the petitioner is illegal, hence I order his re‑instatement with full back wages with effect from the date of his termination /dismissal. Petition accepted.