1997 PLC 413 (PLP)

"Since your temporary services are not required for the time being, it has been decided to terminate your services with immediate effect that is from 31st January, 1993 (evening)."

3. The main issue in this case is whether the termination of employment was valid and in accordance with Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Clause 3 reads as under:‑‑ "The services of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged, or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. "

4. In the present case it is not necessary to go into the question whether the appointment of the appellant was permanent or temporary under the Standing Orders Ordinance because Order 12(3) does not specify a particular type of worker as being temporary. Probationer or Badli or a permanent worker as in the other clauses (1) and (2). Clause (3) applies to all types of workmen without distinction. The requirement is that the Order should be in writing and the order shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken.

5. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani has argued that the termination was justifiable because he was temporary but the question is not of being temporary or permanent. The reason given is that the services are not required for the time being. They are, therefore, terminated with immediate effect from that day in the evening. It is not understood why the services in any company would not be required in the evening since the Managers of the staff would like to be taken back from the office or factory to their houses. This cannot, therefore, be considered as an exploit reason, services not being required for the time being. The time being can be a year or an evening and likely he would have been appointed from the next morning as usual but the appellant driver's patience was exhausted, because he was being extended in service every two months so that he should not become permanent. He, therefore, served the respondent with a grievance notice and filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court. Thus, sufficient compliance has not been made with Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The reasons in the order being vague and not amounting to compliance with the requirement of law.

6. In the case of Ghulam Ahmed v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1990 PLC (C.S.) 385 it was held by Karachi High Court that: "Termination of services of workman or his removal, retrenchment and discharge is prohibited except by an order in writing which should contain expressly and clearly reasons for the action taken against the workman‑‑‑Vague statement in that regard would not amount to compliance with S.O. 12 of the Ordinance‑‑‑Ordinance (VI of 1968) being a beneficial legislation intended to protect the, interests of the workman and also to create harmony in industry. Wisdom behind such provision seems to be that the workman whose services were terminated must be made aware of the facts leading to termination, or else it would be possible for him to challenge it in a proper manner. "

7. In another decision of the Karachi High Court reported in 1992 PLC 1028 (General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited) it was held by Mamoon Kazi, J. as under:‑‑ . "Termination of service‑‑‑Services of employees were terminated by employer simply stating in letter that their services were no longer required by company, without giving any reason for such termination‑‑No doubt employer was not obliged to state reasons. for decision taken by him, but same would not absolve employer from his obligation to explicitly state reasons for action taken by him‑‑?Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 being a beneficial legislation, intended to protect interests of workmen and to produce harmonious relationship between employer and workmen it should be liberally construed to give maximum benefits within framework of law‑‑?Workmen whose services had been terminated, had a right to know reasons on account of which such action had been taken by employer, but reasons must be such as could be sustained by Court of law‑‑‑Letter terminating services of employees in which no reasons for termination of services were stated thus failed to meet requirements of Standing Order 12(3) of Ordinance."

8. As held in the above judgment it is a right of the employee to know why his services are being terminated and merely stating that they are not required for the time being is hardly a reason. Under the circumstances the order of termination is bad and cannot be sustained.

9. As regards the back benefits, each party has tried to evade the real position whether the driver was gainfully employed during the intervening period of three years. The driver had simply stated that he is unemployed and the management has only stated that he is employed elsewhere but the actual evidence of employment or non‑employment is not produced. It is hard to believe that an expert driver like the appellant will not get employment in Karachi for a period of three years. He has, however, orally admitted in Court that he was getting engagement on daily wages occasionally.

10. Under the circumstances the order of Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant may be reinstated in service within 30 days from the passing of this order. Since he was getting employment occasionally even according to his own admission he is allowed only 50% of the back benefits. H.B.T./140/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.