1978 PLP 240 (PLC)

Latif Jalili for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th September 1977. This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The respondent was a Trainee Engineer Working as apprentice in the employment of the appellant. On account of some incident he was suspended w. e. f. 10th December, 1976 and subsequently on 21st December, 1976 the suspension order was withdrawn and on the following day his service was terminated. He approached the Labour Court after the service of grievance notice.

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable and the respondent was not a workman but an officer. It was denied that any grievance notice was given.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman and his service was terminated without any charge‑sheet or inquiry and, therefore, it yeas not sustainable. Consequently, he ordered re‑instatement.

5. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The first objection that was taken is that the respondent was an officer and not a workman and, therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable. I find no force in this contention as admittedly he was a skilled worker and it was not pointed by the learned representative for the appellant that he fell within the category of the employer as defined by I. R. O.

7. The status of the respondent as workman was also disputed on the ground that he was an apprentice. This has also no force as an apprentice is a workman under Standing Orders Ordinance as well as under Industrial Relations Ordinance.

8. It was nest urged that the service of the respondent was terminated and he was not dismissed from service for misconduct. I find no force in this contention for the simple reason as, admittedly, he was suspended on account of some misconduct and subsequently the suspension order w withdrawn and he was removed from service. So in order to circumvent the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance this device was adopted. I B am, therefore, unable to approve of the action taken by the Management. It was a clear case of dismissal and, therefore, the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 were violated as neither he was charge‑sheeted nor any inquiry was held. The learned counsel placed reliance upon Rule 9 of the National Shipping Corporation Service Regulations, but this has no application for the simple reason that, as I have already pointed out, it was a case of dismissal and not a simple termination of the service. Consequently, it was absolutely necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the misconduct before the termination of the service of the respondent.

9. In result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed