1989 PLP 673 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal‑‑Dismissal effected on recommendation of Selection Committee‑‑Validity of‑‑Where post of an ordinary worker was not shown to be a selection post, it was unnecessary to refer the matter to Selection Board‑‑Dismissal of employee having been effected without cogent reasons, he was entitled to reinstatement‑‑Labour Court's decision in dismissing such employee's grievance petition being erroneous, was set aside in appeal without back benefits. S.M. Nazim for Appellant. Ch. Atta Ullah for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 17‑7‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for her reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The appellant was working as a lady Sweeper since 23‑9‑1985. She sent a notice to the management on 5‑7‑1987 for being confirmed whereupon she was not allowed to perform her duties. She sent a grievance notice on 18‑9‑1987 but to no purpose and thus she brought a grievance petition for her reinstatement in service. In written statement it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the appellant was a temporary employee whose services were terminated on 5‑6‑1986 for the reason that her work was not satisfactory, that on 1‑7‑1986 she was temporarily employed on the recommendation of the counseller of her Halqa, that on 29‑3‑1987 the Selection Board did not select her, therefore, her services were again terminated. In the written statement the assertion of the appellant that she worked since 23‑9‑1985 was not controverted. It is not contended in the written statement that the post against which the appellant was working was not permanent. According to Order I of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the appellant on the expiry of three months became permanent and thus her services could not be terminated without calling her explanation and without service of charge‑sheet. Although the allegation was that her work unsatisfactory and not that her conduct was unsatisfactory, yet at least she entitled to the service of show‑cause notice to be given opportunity to rebut allegation made against her. Even after her re‑employment on 1‑7‑1986 she became permanent after completing the probationary period of three months all, thus could not be terminated on 29‑3‑1987. The contention that she was n, selected by the Selection Board does not appear to be correct. Sweeping is not big art. The contention therefore, that the appellant was not selected, was not sufficient. In the written statement no reason is given why she was not selected Even RW‑1 does not disclose why the appellant was not selected by the Selection Board. Exh. R‑3 is the recommendations of the Board. It does not mention an reason for which the appellant was not selected. No rule has been shown that the post of an ordinary sanitary worker is a selection post. This being so, it was quite unnecessary to refer the matter to the Selection Board. It appears that race the appellant applied for being confirmed, therefore, she was removed from service. The appellant thus has a good case for reinstatement and the learned lower Court erred in dismissing her grievance petition. So far as back benefits are concerned the appellant did not assert in her statement that she remained jobless from the date she was removed from service. She, therefore, is not entitled to back benefits.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of termination of the services of the appellant, she is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. A.A./610/Lb. P ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.