' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---The present appeal under section 37 (3) of I.R.O., 1969 is directed against the decision dated 12-1-2001 given by the Labour Court-V, Karachi by which the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the Grievance Petition for reinstatement of the appellant.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was a permanent employee with respondents 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents"). On 1-4-1998, the services of the appellant were terminated by serving a termination order showing that his services were no longer required. The appellant served Grievance Notice upon the respondents, but they did not reply the same. Then the matter was taken to Assistant Director Labour where a meeting was held between the appellant and the respondents in which the representative of the respondent disclosed that the services of the appellant were terminated due to loss of business and financial constraints.
However the appellant was not reinstated, hence he filed the application before the Labour Court.
3. The respondents were served, they filed objections. They took the plea that the reasons, for the termination were supplied to the appellant in termination order and subsequently in the meeting before the Assistant Director Labour, therefore, the services of the appellant were terminated legally. They further took the plea that after the meeting with the Labour Director no Grievance Notice was served, hence the petition was not maintainable.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following points for determination:
(1) Whether the termination of the applicant was in connection with an industrial dispute or it has led to any industrial dispute?
(2) Whether the applicant has served a valid Notice of Grievance and the Petition is time-barred?
(3) Whether the applicant was terminated due to loss in business?
(4) Whether the applicant was illegally terminated and he is entitled for reinstatement in service?
(5) What should the order be?
5. The Labour Court decided that the appellant was a workman. The Grievance Notice was served upon the respondents within time. The services of the appellant were rightly terminated under the termination letter consequently dismissed the Grievance Petition under the impugned decision.
6. I have heard the parties Advocates and perused the record of the case. Learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that the termination letter was not in accordance with paragiaph 12 (3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Standing Order") and the termination order does not disclose the reasons for terminating the services of the appellant and that the reason "Service no longer required" does not constitute the reason, therefore the services of appellant were illegally terminated. He has relied upon Ghulam Ahmed v. Sindh Labour Appellante Tribunal (1990 PLC (C.S.) 385) General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi (1992 PLC 1028); M/s Pakistan Herald Ltd., Karachi v. Victor Sunny (1996 PLC 66) and Aley Nabi v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Court (1993 SCMR 322).
7. Conversely the learned advocate for the respondents has argued that the termination letter showing "services no longer required" is a valid ground for terminating the services of the appellant; that the reasons were communicated to the appellant in the meeting held before the Assistant Director Labour therefore, the requirement of law has been complied with. He has relied upon an unreported case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered in C.P.L.A. No,15-K of 2000, M/s. Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza v. Aftab Ahmed Siddiqui decided on 5-7-2000.
8. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that admittedly the appellant's services were terminated vide termination letter dated 1-4-1998, its operative part reads as under:- "Your services are no longer required and the same are terminated with immediate effect on payment of one month's salary as Notice pay. Kindly collect your dues from the accounts department."
9. It will be noticed that in the above letter no reason whatsoever has been mentioned for terminating the services of the appellant except that his services were no longer required. It is pertinent to point out that paragraph 12(3) of the Standing Order clearly stipulates that "the services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken " Thus the requirement of law is that there should be an order in writing under which the services of a workman are terminated and secondly that the order must clearly and fully show the reason for termination of his services. It will be noticed that the no explicit reason has been mentioned in the order. According to the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary the word "explicit" means, "stated or shown fully or clearly". Thus the requirement of law is that the reason for the termination of services be fully shown in the order. The phrase "no longer required" or "no more required" simply indicates the final decision of the employer in removing the workman from service on undisclosed reason to the workman. The reasons may be known to the employer on which he formed the opinion that the services of the workman were no more required but those reasons must be in writing in the form of an order. The said reasons should be clear, unambiguous and understandable which should be specifically mentioned in the order. Sometimes it is possible that through verbal orders services of a workman are terminated, therefore the written termination order containing the reasons are not communicated to the workman at the particular point of time. However, the requirement of law is that the employer must possesses an order in writing which fully shows the reasons in clear, unambiguous and understandable manner which can be provided to the workman at subsequent stage. If no order at all is available with the employer within the meaning of 12(3) of the Standing Order then the termination of workman would be illegal.
In the case of Muhammad Rauf v. M/s Makran Fisheries Ltd. (1981 SCMR 631) the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan found that a worker was dismissed through oral order but subsequently an order containing the reasons for the dismissal of the workman was produced in Court, the Court after examining the said order found that the said order contained all the required particulars of paragraph 12 (3) of the Standing Order, therefore, the dismissal of the workman was found in accordance with law. In the present case the termination letter dated 1-4-1998 has been produced which simply shows that the services were no longer required but did not give any reason for arriving at that conclusion. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that the reasons of the termination i,e, fall in business and financial constraints, were communicated to the appellant in a meeting before Assistant Director Labour on 27-5-1998, as such, sufficient compliance has been made. In this connection the respondents examined their Manager Claims, Humayoon. A. Farooqui who stated in his evidence as under:-- "Immediately therefore the Management informed the applicant of the reasons for the termination of his service in the office of the Assistant Director Labour (conciliation) in the meeting whose minutes Annexure-C/2 dated 27-5-1988 have been filed by the applicant himself. Thus the reasons for the termination of service are well within the knowledge of the applicant."
10. From the above evidence it is clear that in continuation of termination letter dated 1-4-1998 the respondents simply communicated the above-mentioned reasons to the appellant orally. No efforts were made by the respondents to produce the written order containing the above- mentioned reasons for terminating the appellant's services. Therefore, without producing written order or examining the same by the Court it cannot be held that the compliance of paragraph 12(3) of the Standing Order has been made, because the basic requirement of the said paragraph is that the order of termination of services should be in writing. As no written order has been produced by the respondents within the meaning of paragraph 12 (3) of the Standing Order, therefore, the services of the appellant were illegally terminated.
11. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered in M/s. Pakistan Herald Ltd. (supra) and argued that the phrase "services no more required" is reason by itself, therefore, the services of the appellant were terminated rightly. The said judgment pertains to an employee who was on probation. During probation his services were terminated through a letter showing that his services were no more required. In the context of services of a probationer, the above phrase was interpreted in para. 7 of the judgment which reads as under: ' The termination order dated 2-5-1995 stated that services of the respondent were no more required. Only controversy is whether the expression "no more required" used in termination letter having the subject "termination within probationary period" by itself discloses the reasons for termination or not. In case of probationer, the question whether he is to be employed on permanent basis or not, remains yet to be finally decided. If services are terminated, during the probation period, it only means that the employer is not satisfied with the probationer. In fact, termination or the plea "services no more required" is a termination simpliciter. This by itself is very clear and explicit reason. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the appellant, terminating services of the respondent, was valid and in accordance with law."
(Underline is mine to give emphasis).
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred judgment has explicitly held that for terminating a probationer, no reasons are to be assigned. However, if the services of a workman are terminated during probation, which means that the employer was not satisfied with the services, then his services are no more required. As such, the said phrase was held to be clear and explicit reason for that purpose only. In the present case the appellant is a permanent employee, as such, the above rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is not applicable to the case of permanent employee.
13. After considering the material available on the record I am of the considered view that the services of the appellant were terminated illegally, as such, the impugned judgment is set aside.
The appellant is reinstated in service with all back-benefits. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days.
' The appeal is allowed.