1979PLC475 (PLP)

Choudhry M. Maarif for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of bearing: 18th July, 1979, This is a worker's appeal against the order, dated 10th October, 1978, by the learned 1st Labour Court, dismissing his application for reinstate ment in the service of the respondent wish full Lack benefits.

2. The case of the appellant is that he is a permanent workman of the respondent but his services were illegally terminated by the respondents on 18th May, 1977, without assigning any reason and without complying with the formalities required under the Law. The contention of the respondents on the other hand was that the appellant was a temporary Carpenter who was retrenched from the service as the job entrusted to him had been completed and his services were no longer required.

3. I have heard Mr. Choudhry M. Maarif who appeared for the appellant. The respondents had obtained an adjournment on the previous hearing on the ground that their learned counsel was ill. However, today, neither the said respondents nor their learned counsel is present. I have, therefore, been constrained to hear and decide the matter without the benefit of the arguments on behalf of the respondents.

4. In support of their contention that the appellant was a temporary worker and had been employed for the specific project of a temporary nature, the respondents produced before the Labour Court the letter of appointment of the appellant which bears the thumb impression of the appellant. It is specifically stated in this letter of appointment, that the appellant was being appointed in a temporary capacity and the project for which his service was being employed was also of a temporary nature, and that his services could at any time be terminated in the light of the requirement of the project. It is not clear whether the project itself or the work in the project in which the appellant was engaged was to last for less than or more than 9 months, which would determine whether the appellant was a permanent or temporary workman, but for the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to determine whether the appellant was a permanent or temporary workman. However, I would like to point out that Mr. Maarif has himself conceded that the appellant had not established that he was a permanent workman and, therefore, be may be treated as a temporary workman.

5. Although under clause (2) of Standing Order 12, the service: of a temporary workman can be terminated at any time, and such workman would not be entitled to any notice as in the case of a permanent workman, nevertheless, as provided in clause (3). the services of a workman, whether permanent, temporary, probationer or badli, cannot be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In the instant case, no such order was passed by the respondents. The termination of services of the appellant accordingly was in violation of the provisions of this clause and is thus invalid.

6. I would accordingly allow the appeal and direct that the appellant should be reinstated in service and be given back benefits from the date of the unauthorised termination of his services upto the date that the project on which he was employed or the work on the projects in which he was employed lasted, whichever was the earlier.