1989 PLP 682 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S.0.12(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑ Termination of service‑‑Clerk of Municipal Committee appointed in leave vacancy but subsequently appointment regularised‑‑Post though continued in existence yet services were terminated‑‑No explicit reasons were given in termination order‑‑Termination, held, was not only without justification but also violative of S. O. 12(3)‑‑Termination order set aside awarding re‑instatement. H.R.Haider for Appellant. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 27‑9‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was lastly appointed as Adda Clerk due to the absence of Zulfiqar Ali vide order dated 10‑11‑1987 copy of which is Ex.P‑

7. The services of the appellant were regularized as Mr. Zulfiqar was removed from service on account of long absence. Vide order dated 9‑2‑1988 copy of which is Ex.P‑8 the services of the appellant were terminated and in his place Safdar Ali was appointed as Adda Clerk on ad hoc basis subject to the approval of the Selection Board. No reason is given for the termination of the services of the appellant in the order of termination referred to above. There was, therefore, no justification for the termination and apart from it the order violates the provisions of Standing order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 inasmuch as no explicit reason for the termination is given. Since vide order dated 10‑11‑1987 copy of which is Ex.P‑7, the services of the appellant had been regularized, he therefore, could not be terminated from service m the existence of the post. In the presence of Ex.P‑7 the learned lower Court was not justified in observing that the appellant was working in the leave vacancy and that he was not appointed on regular basis. It appears that the learned lower court has not gone into Exhs.P‑7 and P‑

8. The impugned decision therefore, is not maintainable.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant did not assert in his statement made before the learned lower Court that he was jobless from the date of removal from service, therefore, he is not entitled to back benefits.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the grievance petition of the appellant is accepted and the appellant is I directed to be reinstated in service as Adda Clerk without back benefits. A.E./615/Lb.P Appeal accepted.