1. DECISION ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).--- This appeal has been preferred under section 54(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2010 by the above named appellant establishment, whereby they have challenged the order dated 13th October, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court # I, Karachi, in grievance application # 468 of 2010 under section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.
2. ' Mr. Kausar Ali Shar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Irfan Sheikh learned Representative for the respondent worker has advanced their written arguments/synopsis.
3. ' I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case as well as given due consideration to the written arguments and I have come to the following:--- ' Brief facts of the matter are that the respondent worker was employed with the appellant establishment w,e,f, 1-7-2006 as permanent employee at a consolidated salary of Rs,3500 per month. On 8-9-2008 he was verbally terminated from service. He sent grievance notice through TCS which was not replied then filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court for violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Appellant establishment filed their legal objections and written statement and contended that the worker had himself left the job after obtaining full and final settlement and also produced Annexures "R/1" to "R/4-A" which includes statement, clearance certificate and consolidated statement along with TCS tracking receipt.
4. ' Respondent worker filed his affidavit in evidence he was cross-examined at length and the worker had denied the Annexures "R/1" to "R/4-A" and on his request learned Representative of TCS who has also been examined and produced shipment detailed. On behalf of the establishment Syed Hassan Jameel Zaidi the authorized Representative filed his affidavit in evidence and he was cross-examined in the witness-box.
5. ' Crucial point which has been decided by the learned Labour Court in favour of the respondent worker is that the services of the respondent worker was terminated verbally in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance, 1968 such fact has been admitted by the appellant witness in the following words:--- "It is correct that applicant was employed by the respondent on 1-7-2006 as permanent employee.
6. It is incorrect to suggest that applicant was terminated verbally on 1-9-2008. The applicant was issued termination letter by the respondent. It is correct to suggest that I had not filed copy of termination letter along with my written statement and affidavit in evidence.... It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely that no termination letter was issued to the applicant. I am unaware if any charge sheet was issued to the applicant by the respondent. I am unaware if any enquiry was conducted against the applicant. Voluntarily says that the applicant himself left the job. I am unaware in our company who is well conversant with the facts of the case. It is correct to suggest that I have not filed any documentary proof in respect of burning of our record and report made to the police before this Court.... It is correct to suggest that after the incidence office of applicant was shifted from PNSC building to the premises of KDLB. It is correct to suggest that there was no such incident of fire occurred at KDLB building. It is correct to suggest that after shifting of our office in KDLB building premises we again maintained our official record of the company. It is correct to suggest that applicant's salary at the time of termination was Rs,3500 per month. It is correct to suggest that when applicant was terminated he was drawing Rs,3500 per month as salary from our company, the minimum wage fixed by the Government was Rs,4600 per month.
7. Voluntarily says that the salary of the applicant was fixed as Rs,3500 per month because company is paying five bonuses to its employees... It is. correct to suggest that no enquiry was conducted against the applicant. Voluntarily says that applicant himself disappeared from service."
8. ' The perusal of the above record reveals that the appellant management stating two views that his services were terminated and termination letter was issued, but the appellant establishment failed to produce any termination letter before the Court of Law and on the other hand appellant claims that the respondent worker himself disappeared and on this point, the appellant management had admitted that no charge sheet has been issued or any enquiry has been conducted. From this conclusion, violation of Standing Order 12(3) as well as Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is established, therefore, the respondent worker has rightly been reinstated in service with all back benefits including five bonuses per year as stated by the witness of the establishment during his cross-examination and further his wage shall be settled according to the Minimum Wages Act.
9. ' In view of the above discussions, I find no merits in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the order dated 13-10-2011 passed by the learned Labour Court is maintained.