1989 PLP 651 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Employee of Municipal Committee contended that he was a regular employee with 20 years service‑‑Services terminated on plea that being work charged employee holding of enquiry or how‑cause notice were not necessary‑‑Labour Court accepting plea and dismissing petition‑‑Appellate Tribunal coming to conclusion that evidence on record was not sufficient to controvert statement of employee regarding his being a regular employee‑‑Employee, in circumstances, held, was condemned unheard‑‑Reinstatement with 50% back benefits allowed in cir stances. Zafar Saleem for Appellant. Mahmood Bashir for. Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1989. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 5‑11‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The learned lower Court has held that the appellant was a workf charged employee, therefore, holding of enquiry and giving show‑cause notice were not necessary. No doubt, RW‑1 stated that the appellant was a temporary employee but in cross‑examination he showed his ignorance about the length of the service of the appellant. He said that since he came in Halqa in 1984, therefore, he did not know for how long the appellant was in service. Since RW‑1 was not aware of the true facts, the learned lower Court had wrongly relied upon the statement for holding that the appellant was a temporary or work‑charged employee. The statement of RW‑1 thus was not sufficient to controvert the statement of the appellant wherein he categorically stated that he was a regular employee for the last twenty‑two years. He was a permanent employee, therefore, if at all there were any complaints against him a charge‑sheet should have been issued and an enquiry should have been held The appellant has been condemned unheard. Even the order of termination was not conveyed to him. A suggestion was made p by some clerk that the services of the appellant be terminated and some one may be employed temporarily. The Mayor did not do anything on this except writing the word `yes'.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant deposed that right from the date of termination from service he was jobless. But he was not cross-examined on this point. R.W.1 the solitary witness examined by the respondent did not say that the appellant got some employment elsewhere.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of removal from service and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant, is directed to be reinstated m service with 50% back benefits. A.E./663/Lb. P Appeal accepted.