' As consented, by parties these appeals have been heard and disposed of at Katcha Peshi.
' Since the common facts and circumstances are involved and the appeals arise out of a single order, those are being disposed of by this single judgment.
These appeals are directed against the order dated 17-12-2003, passed by Presiding Officer Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, whereby the termination of the respondents/petitioners was declared to be against the law. Consequently the petitions were allowed and the respondents/petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential back-benefits within one month.
1.
Precisely, the facts forming the background of the cases are thatthe respondents were appointed as Typists and were working with the appellant-Bank sinCe different dates of their appointments.
Respondent Mashooq Ali was appointed on 3-1-1996 and joined on 7-1-1996. Respondents Mehboob Ali and Abdul Atiq was appointed on 1-1-1996 and joined service on the same day.
Respondent Ghulam Haider was appointed on 3-4-1995 and joined service on the same day. It is case of the respondents/petitioners that since they have successfully completed the probationary period of three months as prescribed under the law, therefore, they became permanent workmen of the respondent-Bank which is a commercial establishment amenable to the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) 1968. It is averred that the work and conduct of the respondents/ petitioners during entire service period remained satisfactory and there was no complaint of whatsoever nature against them.However, abruptly they were terminated from service by separate orders dated 14-4-1996 on the ground that their services were no longer required as they were not found upto the required standard. The respondents filed separate appeals before, the respondent-Bank. Subsequently each one of them submitted grievance notice to the appellant-Bank which was not responded hence they individually 'filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court for declaring their termination to be illegal.
2. Appellant-Bank filed their written statement in each case separately whereby besides challenging the jurisdiction of the Court the appellant-Bank took the plea that the petitions were barred by limitation. It was further pleaded that the petitioners/respondents were not removed from the employment in connection with or as a cousequence of any industrial dispute, therefore, they were not competent to maintain the petitions. On merits it was submitted that the respondents were appointed on probation with a clear understanding that the probationary period could be extended for further period if deemed necessary by the Bank and they had agreed to above conditions. It was further pleaded that when the services of the respondents were terminated they were still on probation, as such, they had no cause of action to file the petitions. It was the case of the appellants that since the respondents/petitioners hadnot successfully completed the probationary period as no letter of confirmation was issued in their favour, therefore, theirs services were rightly terminated and that none of their secured or guaranteed right was infringed.'
3. Each one of the respondents appeared in his case as his own witness and reaffirmed the facts as mentioned in the petition. They were duly cross-examined. Mr. Zafar Abrar Naqvi General Manager of the appellant-Bank was tendered in evidence on behalf of the appellants, and was cross- examined.
4. On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of respondents/workers was unlawful.
5. The order of.The Labour Court is impugned in these appeals. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondents had not attained the status of a permanent workman as they have not satisfactorily completed the probationary period. It was argued that mere completion of probationary period was not enough to bring a workman within the ambit of "permanent workman" unless it is proved that the workman has satisfactorily completed the period of probation. It was contended that since the Appellants had not satisfactorily completed the period of probation, therefore, their service were liable to be terminated at any time.
6. Conversely it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondents stood already confirmed in service and that the orders of their termination were issued in colourable exercise of powers which were unsustainable.
' Both the learned counsel referred to certain authorities in support of their respective contentions.
7. The arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been given due and proper consideration, the material placed on the record has been scrutinized. Necessary guidance from the case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the parties has been sought.
8. It is an- admitted position 'that respondent Ghulam Haider(Labour Appeal No,3 of 2004) was appointed on 3-4-1995 while respondent, Abdul Atiq (Labour Appeal No,4 of 2004) and Mehboob Ali (Labour Appeal No,6 of 2004) joined duties on 1-1-1996, whereas respondent Mashooq Ali (Labour Appeal No,5 of 2004) joined his duties on 17-1-1996. All of them were terminated on 14-4- 1996. According to annexure 'All' placed on record in the case of Ghulam Haider the said respondent/worker was confirmed in banks service tram 1-10-1995 videorder dated 23-10-1995. But, he was terminated vide order dated 14th April, 1996, informing him that on evaluation of his employment, his service was not found upto the required level.
9. During arguments when confronted with This legal position learned counsel of the appellant was left with no option, but had to concede that after confirmation of his service in October, 1995, there was no justification for terminating his services on the ground that hiswork was not upto the mark.
The termination of respondent Ghulam Haider was thus illegal. The order of Labour Court was accordingly unexceptionable.
10. Respondent Abdul Atiq and Mehboob Ali were appointed vide letter of appointment dated 1-1- 1996. According to the terms and Conditions Nos.3 and 4 laid down in the letters of appointment issued by the appellant read as under:--
3. You will be on probation for a period of three months which may be extended for any further period if deemed necessary by the Bank.
4. During the probationary period, the service contract can be terminated without giving any notice or reasons thereof from either side."
11. As specifically mentioned in Condition No,3 the probation: period of the respondents/workers was three months. However, it was extendable if deemed necessary by the Bank. According to the, Condition No,4, the service contract of the respondents/workers can be terminated without giving any notice or reason during the probation period.
' In the above case the respondents/workers were appointed and joined their duties on 1-1-1996 and, as such, their probationary period of 3 months expired on 30th March, 1996. Nothing was placed on the record that the probationary period of, the above named respondents/workers was extended.Respondent Abdul. Atiq (L.A. No,4 of 2004) deposed that his confirmation was recommended by the Manager vide his letter dated 31-3-1996. He also placed on record said letter which is annexure '1A/1(A)'. Nothing was suggested to the applicant in the cross-examination that the said letter issued, by the Manager was false, fabricated or manipulated documents. Even in the affidavit-in-evidence of appellants' witness the said letter of the Manager recommending the confirmation of the appellant was not disputed. In the affidavit-in-evidence the witness of the appellant himself stated that "that Applicant was not issued with a letter of probation whether the probationary period could be extended."
12. The letter of appointment issued to respondent Mehboob Ali (L.A. No,6 of 2004) also contains above-mentioned 2 conditions at Serial Nos.3 and 4. The respondent Mehboob Ali also deposed that his case was also recommended for confirmation per letter dated 31st March, 1996. Such letter is placed on record as annexure 'A/7'. This confirmation letter issued by the Manager was not disputed by the bank authorities. Neither any suggestion was made to the effect that the above letter was manipulated or fabricated nor anything contrary was brought in the evidence of the respondent.
13. The letter of appointment dated 3-1-1996 issued to respondent Mashooq Ali (L.A. No,5 of 2004) contains the similar Conditions Nos.3 and 4 with regard to probation, extension thereof and the termination during the probationary period as mentioned above. It is not the case of the appellant/Establishment that the period of probation of the above named employee was extended. Thus evidently the above-named respondents/workers also completed the probationary period as fixed by the law and also as per the terms of contract.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis on the definition of 'permanent workman' as contained in Standing Order-I to infer that the permanent workman is a workman who has been engaged on work of a permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months. It was strenuously argued that unless a worker satisfactorily completes the period of probation, he cannot be deemed to have completed the probationary period. I am afraid the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that if the said contention is accepted then the definition of "Probationer" as contained in clause (c) of Standing Order-I will be rendered ineffective and redundant. It will be appropriate to re-produce hereunder the definition of probationer which reads as under:--
(c) A "probationer", is, a workman who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy in a post and has not completed three months service therein. If a permanent employee is employed as a probationer in a higher post he may, at anytime during the probationary period of three months, be reverted to his old permanent post.
15. Bare perusal of the above definition would show that a workman can be provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy on probation for a period of three months. This period of three months is stipulated in law to enable the employer to assess the capabilities, qualities and efficiency of work and conduct of a workman. If during the period of probation, the work and conduct of a workman is not found fit or upto the mark, his services can be terminated without notice.
' It may be stated that Standing Order-12 regulates the "Termination of Employee". According to this provision for terminating an employee or a permanent workman for any reason, other than misconduct, one month notice shall be given either by the employer or the workman. However, a temporary workman or a probationer or Badli shall not be entitled to any notice. In such circumstances, the services of a workman who had been provisionally_ employed on permanent post can be terminated during the probationary period if his work and conduct is found to be unsatisfactory. But, when the workman has completed his period of probation, it will be deemed that the employer was satisfied with the work and conduct of the workman. Thus after the completion of probationary period the services of a workman cannot be terminated on the ground that his work or conduct was not satisfactory. Such termination could neither be termed to be legal nor valid or justified. It needs no emphasis that Labour Laws have been promulgated to safeguard the interests of the working class in order to provide them protection from arbitrary and unjustified action of the employers. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance 1968, was enacted to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of Workers. The provisions have to be enforced and followed strictly. The actions of the employers have to be checked in order to prevent them from circumventing the law and acting in colourable exercise of powers. There are reasons to believe that the orders of termination which are the subject-matter of these appeals were the actions constituting malice in law.
16. The perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court reveals that it is quite elaborate and detailed containing sound, legal and valid reasons. No infirmity or illegality has been noticed, thus no interference is warranted.
17. In the circumstances, I have arrived at the conclusion that learned Labour Court has rightly held that the termination of the respondents/workers was in violation of law. The order passed by Labour Court is just, fair and proper. The appeals are without merit and liable to be dismissed.
Those are accordingly dismissed.
' These are the reasons for the short order dated 15-4-2005 whereby the appeals were dismissed.