1976 PLP 625 (PLC)

This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated March 15, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that it was belated and That the appellant had not followed the pro cedure prescribed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The appellant was a Delivery Clerk in the establishment of the respondent. The respondent carries on the business of Clearing, Forwarding and Shipping Agents. The appellant's services were terminated on 4th October, 1971, because he was not taking interest in performance of his duties. The appellant made an application under section 34 of the Ordinance on 7th November, 1972, almost after a year of the termination of his services. The appellant gave no explanation for this long delay. The appellant admitted in his cross-examination that the establishment employed only about six or seven persons. On the face of it, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stanping Orders) Ordinance, 1968, does not apply.

2. The appellant appeared in person before me. He has denied the receipt of any salary. He has denied his signatures on the Salary Receipts produced by the respondent. I have gone through the cross-examination of the respondent. I do not find any reason to hold that the respondent had forged the signatures on the receipts.

3. The learned Advocate for the respondent, Mr. S. Iftikhat 1-Iassan, candidly submitted that the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Shops Ordinance), will be applicable to the case of the appellant The services of the appellant could be terminated in terms of section 19 of the Shops Ordinance. Subsection (1) of section 19 of Shops Ordinance reads as under: "For terminating employment of a permanent employee, one month's notice in writing shall be given either by the employer or by the employee and m lieu of notice, one month's wages calculated on the basis of average of wages earned during the preceding three months shall be paid."

4. It may be mentioned at this stage that admittedly, the appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent's Organization. The letter terminating the services of the appellant is on the record of the learned Labour Court. It reads as under "We sincerely regret to inform you that the Organization has decided to part with your services. You were served with a memo the reply of which is still not being furnised by you till date. In lieu of the termination, the Organization is paying you 15 days notice Salary. You are asked to come and settle your accounts."

5. On the face of it, the notice terminating the services of the appellant dated 1st October 1971, is not in conformity with the provisions of law. Therefore, the notice terminating the services of the appellant is bad in law. Two alternatives are open to this Court. One is to order the re-instatement of the appellant and the other is to award compensation. So far as the question of re-instatement is concerned, the application being very belated, it does not arise. The establishment cannot be forced to employ a person after such a long time and dispense with the services of the person, who may have been in the meantime appointed in place of the appellant. The appellant can only be entitled to a reasonable compensation. The appellant's salary appears to be, from the receipts filed by the respondent, Rs. 212.75 per month. I consider that ends of justice would be met if tht appellant is awarded Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) as compensation, The award of the learned Labour Court is set aside. The respondent to pay Rs. 500 within two weeks to the appellant, as compensation.