DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed an electrician in the respondent Co-operative Housing Society, was discharged from service with effect from 30th June, 1981 on the ground that his post had been abolished. The appellant challenged the termination of his services before the learned Fourth Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that it was not maintainable as the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent society, and secondly, that the appellant was appointed as a part-time electrician, which post had been abolished. The learned Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the letter of appointment produced by the appellant is bogus inasmuch as at the time when it was issued, the person who had signed the letter of appointment was not the Honorary Secretary of the respondent society he having been replaced by the Administrator by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The appellant aggrieved by the above decision of the learned Labour Court, has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. M. Maarif, for the appellant. He has mainly relied on the letter of appointment of the appellant, dated 26th July, 1980, according to which the appellant was appointed as Electrician on a monthly salary of Rs, 600 in the scale of Rs, 600-50-700-75- 1,000-100-1,400. The respondents in their written statement, had taken the specific plea that at no time the number of persons employed by them exceeded 19 and, accordingly, the Standing Orders are not applicable to them. In support of this plea they produced the payment-sheets bearing the signatures of the employees of the respondent society, including that of the appellant. These payment sheets are for the months of May, 1980 to March, 1981. A perusal of these payment sheets discloses that the total number of employees of the respondent society was between nine to twelve and it never exceeded the figure of twelve. On the other hand, there is merely the bare statement of the appellant that more than twenty workmen were employed in the respondent society. Neither any of these workmen were examined by him nor have even their names of their occupations been stated by him. In fact he has admitted in his cross-examination that he used to see only five to six employees in the respondent society. He has further admitted that he is not in a position to say if there were other employees in the society besides persons whose names appear on the payment sheets. In the circumstances I am satisfied that there is no tangible evidence on the record from which it could be inferred that the number of workmen in the respondent society during the relevant period exceeded 19. In consequence, I would concur with the finding of the learned Labour Court that the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent society and hence the appellant's grievance petition is not maintainable.
3. It has also not been disputed that the post of' electrician, to which the appellant was employed, has been abolished. As such, there is no post to which the appellant can rightly be appointed. It is well established that the employer has a right to abolish a post, unless the abolition of the post is considered to be mala fides and a cloak or device to get, rid of an inconvenient workman. There is no indication of mala fides in the instant case. The termination of services of the appellant thus was a valid exercise of its right by the respondent society.
4. It is not necessary for me for the purposes of decision of this appeal to go into the question whether the appointment letter, dated 26th July, 1980, is a bogus one or was subsequently procured as has been held by the learned Labour Court. However, it has been admitted by the appellant himself in his evidence before the learned Labour Court that in June, 1980 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had replaced Mr. A. Usmani by D. A. Wasti as Administrator of the Society. If Mr. Usmani was removed from the post of Secretary in June, 1980, it is not understood how he could have issued the appointment letter of the appellant on 26th July, 1980.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.