1982 PLP 1096 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD SARWAR BUTT Appeal No. LHR‑27 of 1982‑Pb., decided on 2nd February, 1982. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑ S. Os. 12 & 13 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 ‑Workman convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as a result of case registered for workers strike Employer terminating service of worker on grounds that job could not be left vacant for period of sentence of worker‑Witness of management admitting before Labour Court that termination of service was for reason that workman took part in illegal strike Labour Court accepting grievance petition and directing reinstate ment on ground that impugned order could not be construed as termination simpliciter but a result of alleged misconduct of taking part in illegal strike hence an enquiry with defence opportunity after service of charge‑sheet was necessary‑Termination order in circumstances, held not sustainable and rightly set aside by Labour Court. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant. This appeal arises from the decision dated 22nd December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The workers demanded that 24th November, 1977 be allowed to be observed as holiday, but the Management did not agree to it. The respondent alongwith others went on strike. A case was registered which resulted in the conviction and sentence of one year R.I. and five lashes to the respondent. The appellant terminated his services on the ground that he had been sentenced to one year's R.I. for which period the job could not be left vacant. The respondent challenged the order in a petition made under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 which was accepted and he was re‑instated. The appellant challenged the order in a writ petition, which was accepted, order of re‑instatement was set aside and a direction was made that the Labour Court should first decide whether the termination was covered by Standing Order 12 or it was coloured with an action taken for misconduct. Before the lower Court R.W. I Mr. Zakaullah admitted as correct that the services of the respon dent were terminated as he had taken part in the illegal strike. It is thus clear that the order of termination was made on account of the misconduct allegedly committed by the respondent by taking part in the illegal strike. This being so, it was necessary to charge‑sheet the respondent and to make an enquiry against him affording him opportunity to defend himself. The order of termination, therefore, was not sustainable and was rightly set aside by the lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.