2007 PLC 423 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA. K. LEGHARI, J.

The appellant claimed to have been employed with respondent as weaver for 15 years and was performing his duties to the entire satisfaction of his employer. As the respondents were not providing legal benefits to the workers, the appellant raised his voice against such illegalities. The respondents were annoyed and terminated his services vide letter of termination, dated 15-4-2004. After service of mandatory grievance notice the appellant filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court praying therein for declaring his removal as illegal and consequent reinstatement with back benefits.

2. The respondents contested the grievance petition denying the allegations and pleading that the performance of the appellant worker was unsatisfactory, despite warnings he failed to improve his performance, therefore, respondent management terminated his service. It was pleaded that the termination was legal and that the appellant workman has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court. Evidence was led by both the parties in support of their case. On appraisal of evidence, the Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition. Hence this appeal.

3. It is mainly contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was working with respondents since 15 years and was permanent workman, as such termination of his service on the alleged act of misconduct without holding inquiry was unlawful.

4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no proof that the appellant was working with respondent since last 15 years. He further contended that the termination of service with one month notice or pay lieu thereof was permissible in law.

5. Arguments advanced at the bar have been considered and the material placed on the record has been examined.

6. Though in the written statement relationship of the appellant as workman employed by respondent has not been challenged except duration of employment that too in an evasive manner, yet the appellant in support of his claim produced in evidence an identity card having been issued by the respondents on 6-10-2003 as date of its issue. Even if the appellant was employed with the respondents from above date, he will be deemed to be permanently employed workman. Certainly the termination of a workman for valid and genuine grounds through an order in writing containing explicit reasons was permissible under the law. However, for terminating the service of a permanent workman, on account of certain allegations, could not be sustained unless the workman concerned is afforded an opportunity to rebut such allegations and the same are proved in an impartial inquiry.

7. The bare perusal of the contents of letter of termination reveals that it contained the allegation that performance of the appellant was not up to the mark for considerable period of time. It was further alleged that appellant has failed to discharge his duty properly. Contents of termination letter sufficiently show that the appellant was terminated on account of unsatisfactory service and his inability to discharge his duty properly. Besides the respondents have produced in evidence an application bearing the signatures of the applicant addressed to the Admin. Manager containing allegation of quarrel between the workers to which the reference has also been made in the cross-examination of the appellant worker. This reveals displeasure of respondent management.

8. The perusal of letter of termination and the pleading made by respondents are adequate enough to show that the termination of appellant workman was not simpliciter but it contained a stigma on his career. The Labour Court utterly failed to correctly apply the law and properly appreciate the evidence. Resultantly it rendered an infirm and invalid order which necessitated reversal.

9. As a result of the above discussion the appeal is accepted. Order passed by Labour Court is set aside. Consequently grievance petition is allowed.

10. Keeping in mind the fact that for obvious reason, the appellant workman was rendered undesirable from respondents point of view, it will be inappropriate and disharmonious not to order his reinstatement. It is therefore, directed that in lieu of reinstatement the appellant shall be paid 25 months wages as provided under the relevant provision of law within a period of one month.

11. So far as back benefits are concerned neither non-employment was pleaded nor proved by the appellant, as such appellant is not entitled to back benefits. H.B.T./K-11/K Appeal accepted.