1990 PLP 447 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. O. 12(3)‑‑‑Removal from service, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal from service‑‑‑Mandatory preconditions‑‑‑Written order explicitly stating reasons‑‑ Provisions mandatory without distinction between temporary or permanent workman‑‑‑Violation of provision would vitiate the penalty order. Gohar Iqbal for Appellants. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No.VII at Sukkur, dated 7‑12‑1988, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and ordered reinstatement of the respondent alongwith back benefits.

2. The facts of the case arc that the respondent was employed as Baildar in G.L. Sub‑Division Drainage since May, 1980, but, no appointment order was issued in writing till he was given appointment order on 3‑11‑1980, but, was not paid wages for the previous period. He again continued to work after the appointment order was issued, but was not paid any wages for the months of February to May, 1987 when on 4‑6‑1987, he was orally informed that he had been dismissed from service due to misconduct. After serving grievance notice, the respondent filed grievance petition in the Labour Court. The appellants filed their written statement but did not contest the matter further and the grievance petition was allowed by the impugned order.

3. Mr. Gohar 1qbal, learned counsel for the appellants has only relied upon the admission of the respondent in the cross‑examination wherein he had admitted that he was dismissed in February, 1987. It is submitted by him that the respondent was dismissed in February, 1987, but, he filed grievance notice on 2‑8‑1987, which was apparently time‑barred and, therefore, the grievance petition was not maintainable. On an examination of the R & P of the case it appeared that in the written statement, the appellants did not claim to have dismissed the respondent in February 1987 and his averment that he was orally informed about the dismissal on 4‑6‑1987 has gone unchallenged in his cross‑examination. Admittedly no written order of termination of service was passed by the appellants, nor it has been produced on the record of the case, nor it is mentioned in the written statement. Under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1908, the service of 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. This provision does not make any distinction between temporary or permanent workman, but, it makes it mandatory that the order in writing should be passed by an employer in case of every workman who is dismissed, discharged or retrenched from service. Obviously, the appellants have violated this mandatory provision of law. As pointed above the averment of the respondent as to when he came to know as to the cause of action, has not been challenged in the cross‑examination nor rebutted by any other evidence as the appellants did not lead any evidence.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. A.E./1447/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.