1992 PLP 611 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991. These 2 appeals are directed against the single order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 26-5-1987, whereby the grievance petition of the respondents and 2 other workmen were allowed and they were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. I propose to dispose of both these appeals by this single decision.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were admittedly employed as workmen with the appellants who terminated their services on 15-1-1986 without written orders alongwith the services of 2 other workmen, namely, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ibrahim. The respondents and other 2 workmen after serving the grievance notices upon the management filed their grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court which were allowed by the impugned order.

3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Rana Mahmood, learned Representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the cases.

4. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that r the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called as the Ordinance) was not applicable to the establishment of the appellants and, therefore, no order, in writing, was necessary for termination of their services. It is not disputed that the services of the respondents were terminated without any written order. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Acting Manager of the appellants, the only witness examined by the appellants, has admitted in his cross-examination that according to the Payment Register in September, 1985 there were 23 employees; in October, 1985, there were 25; and in November, 1985 also 25 were employed and besides there was technical staff 19 in September 1985; 22 in October 1985, and 22 in November, 1985; and in December, 1985 the strength of office staff was 21 while of technical staff was 22; whereas in January 1986, 15 persons were employed in the office only. Even, if this statement is taken to be correct, it will be clear that the Standing Orders Ordinance would be applicable in view of Standing Order 1(4)(a) which may be reproduced as under:- 1(4): It applies to -- (a) every industrial establishment or commercial establishment wherein twenty or more workmen are employed, directly or through any other person whether on behalf of himself or any other person, or were so employed on any day during the preceding twelve months."

5. It is not disputed that the services of the respondents were terminated, on 15-1-1986. Thus, in the last preceding 12 months admittedly the appellants employed more than 20 workmen. Even, if it is held that the learned Labour Court has not correctly held that the number of workers was more than 49 workers, still under the second proviso to section 1 of the Ordinance,' only C clauses (6) and (8) of Standing Order 12 would not be applicable. Clause (3) of Standing Order 12 would still be applicable which provides that the services of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman will be removed, retrenched and discharged except by an order, in writing, which will explicitly state the reason for the action taken.

6. The action of the appellants in terminating the services of the workmen without any written order was violative of Standing Order 12(3) and was not tenable and as such, the learned Labour Court rightly set it aside. It may alto be pointed that even the appellants accepted the order of the learned Labour Court against the 2 other workmen and did not file any appeal against the said 2 workmen.

7. Considering all the facts and law discussed above, I find no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./1846/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.