1983 PLP 1029 (PLC(CS))

3. The S. R. T. C. resisted the grievance petitions of the respondents on the grounds that as services of the respondents had been terminated with effect from 31st January, 1980, their grievance petitions, which were filed in April, 1982, were hopelessly time‑barred. Two other grounds were urged against the maintainability of the grievance petitions of the respondents. The first was that the notice (Notification) published in the Press was in respect of only those persons who had a right of re ‑instatement/re‑employ ment within twelve months of the termination of their services, and the second was that the applications of the bus conductors seeking reinstatement in service were reviewed 'by a Board‑ appointed by S. R. T. C. and only those conductors whose past performance was found satisfactory were reinstated implying thereby that the past performance of the respondents was not found satisfactory and hence they were not re‑instated.

4. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that as the S. R. T. C. itself had invited applications from the bus conductors whose services had bean terminated, vide the omnibus order, dated 28th January, 1980, it was not open to it to plead the bar of limitation. It also repelled the other contention of the appellant and allowed the grievance petitions of the respondents as already indicated.

5. I have heard Mr. Shaikh Abdul Ghani, the learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Hasan Hameedi, who appeared for the three respondents.

6. Now, an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., can only be preferred for the enforcement of a right guaranteed by law,. an award or settlement. Mr. Hasan Hameedi was unable to satisfy me that the respondents had a right under a law, award or settlement for re‑instatement or even re‑employment in service.. The notice in the newspapers issued by the S. R. T. C. did not confer a right under a law, award or settlement on JA the respondents to be reinstated or re‑appointed in service. Mr. .Hasan Hameedi, accordingly, very fairly conceded that no such right could be enforced by the respondents under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

7. Although the three respondents do not appear to have an enfor ceable right under section 25‑A, I. R. O., for re‑instatement in service, they do have another grievance under section 25‑A, I. R. O., which has not been considered by the learned Labour Court. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the notice in the Press of the S. R. T. C. the three respondents had submitted applications to the S.R.T.C. for reinstatement in service/reappointment and pending the process of their applications they were issued orders of appointment on daily wages. It is further admitted position that both respondent Muhammad Saleh and respondent Illahi Bux actually served for some time in the S. R. T. C. on daily wages, as stated by them in their grievance petitions and in their evidence before the learned Labour Court. Since all three of them appear to have been re‑employed, though on daily wages, their services could be terminated only in accordance with the provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of Standing Order

12. One of the requirements of these clauses is that the services of a workman, whether permanent or temporary, can only be terminated by an order in writing specifically stating the reasons for such termination of services. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Shaikh Abdul Ghani that the very orders of appointment of the three respondents indicated that they were being appointed for a specific period and on the expiry of the said period their services automatically stood terminated. In the first place no such. order in the case of respondent Atta Muhammad has been produced. Secondly; the orders which have been produced (in the case of Illahi Bux and Muhammad Saleh) do not. specifically state that on the expiry of the period of appointment their services would stand terminated. It is also not clear from the record whether the services of the respondent, in fact, were terminated on the expiry of the periods for which they were appointed on daily wages or they continued to serve with the S. R. T. C. even after the expiry of those periods as claimed by Mr. Hasan Hameedi. In the circum stances, I have no alternative but to remand the three cases to the learned Labour Court, after setting aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court, to record a fresh finding in the light of the observations made by this Tribunal, and after giving an opportunity to both parties .to lead evidence :‑ (i) In the case of respondent Atta Muhammad‑ (a) whether a formal order of his appointment on daily wages was issued ; (b) ‑ whether he actually served as bus .conductor in the S. R. T. C. on daily wages, and if so, for whether period ; (c) whether there was any order terminating his services or alterna tively whether his services automatically stood terminated on account of his being appointed on daily wages for a specific period ; and (ii) in the case of respondents Muhammad Saleh and Illahi Bux‑ (a) whether their services on daily wages and‑ particularly that of respondent Muhammad Saleh, were continuous ; (b) whether their services stood terminated on the expiry of the period for which they bad been appointed on daily wages or they continued to serve beyond the said period ; and (c) whether any formal order terminating their services had been issued. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of these cases expeditiously. Case remanded.