' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 26th May, 1981, holding the termination of services of the respondent workman as invalid and directing the appellants herein to re-instate him in service with back benefits and arrears of pay, on the ground that there was no valid order of his termination of services.
2. I have heard Mr. Raees Muhammad Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Wahid Bux, who appeared for the respondent workman.
3. The main issue which falls to be considered in the instant case is whether the termination of services of the respondent workman is in contravention of the provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of Standing Order 12. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to briefly state the facts which have given rise to the present appeal. It appears that the respondent was temporarily appointed as Workshop Cleaner with effect from 5th December, 1974, vide order of the Divisional Manager of the appellants, dated 12th December, 1974.
The respondent workman continued in the employment of the appellants until 28th January, 1980, when his services were terminated along with several other employees of the appellants due to general retrenchment. The appellant subsequently, vide order of the Divisional Manager, dated 24th May, 1980, was taken up temporarily in service for a period of 2 months. The said order reads as follows :- "Mr. Altaf Hussain is hereby temporarily employed as shop cleaner for two months only w. e. f. 21st April. 1980, at Rs. 260 P. M. In the Revised National Scale of Pay of Rs. 260-6-302/7-360. His services will automatically be terminated on the expiry of the stipulated period.
' He is directed to report for duty to Incharge Tando Muhammad Khan sector.
Authority :-Verbal approval of Chairman.
(Sd/-) Divisional Manager."
' It is claimed by the respondent workman that despite the aforesaid order, he continued in the employment of the appellants until 28th August, 1980, when his services were orally terminated without any reason being assigned for such termination. The respondent thereafter, on 12th November, 1980, served a grievance notice upon the appellants but as he received no reply, he filed, a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 2nd December, 1980. The appellant corporation resisted the grievance petition of the respondent mainly on the ground that by the very order of his fresh appointment, dated 24th May, 1980, the services of the respondent stood automatically terminated on the expiry of the 2 months period for which he was specifically appointed. It was strongly denied that thereafter, the services of the respondent were continued as claimed by him. It was also denied by the appellants that persons junior to the respondent were continued in service when the services of the respondent were terminated. The grievance petition of the respondent was further resisted on the ground that the grievance petition as well as the grievance notice were time-barred. The learned Labour Court repelled the contention of the appellants that the grievance petition of the respondent or the notice served by him was time barred as it relied upon the statement of the respondent that his services were orally terminated by the Traffic Assistant on 28th August, 1980. It further took the view that as no separate orders of termination of services of the respondent had been issued, the respondent is deemed to have continued in service.
4. I would first deal with the issue whether the termination of services of the respondent is in violation of the provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of Standing Order 12. Clause (2) of the said Standing Order specifically provides that no notice of termination of service or pay in lieu of notice, as required to be given to permanent workmen under clause (1) of the said Standing Order, needs to be given to a temporary workman while terminating his services. However, clause (3) of the said Standing Order, which is applicable alike to permanent as well as to temporary workmen, provides that the order terminating the services of a workman must be in writing and must specifically state the reasons for terminating the services. The learned Labour Court is of the view that there should be a separate order of termination of services and that the law does not envisage that the order of termination of services can form a part or be merged in the appointment order itself. With respect to the learned Labour Court, I find myself unable to concur in its view. As already pointed out, the sole requirements of the law, in case of termination of services of a temporary workman are, firstly, that the termination of services must be through an order in writing, and secondly, that the said order must give specific reasons for the termi nation of services. It does not provide that such an order must be separate and not form part of the original order of appointment. There is thus, in my view, no bar against an appointment order itself statin that the appointment would be for a specified period and that on the expiry of the said period the services of the employee would stand terminated, as in the instant case. Such an order would in fact clearly manifest the intention of the employer to employ the workman for only limited period and the reasons for the termination of the employment would be that after the expiry of the said period, the services of the workman would not be required.
5. The grievance petition of the respondent is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that both the grievance petition as well as the grievance notice is time-barred. Although it is claimed by the respondent that his services were continued by the appellants till 28th August, 1980, he has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his contention except his bare word. On the other hand, witness Aziz Muhammad, the Divisional Manager, S. R. T. C., has strongly denied that the services of the respondent were continued. If the services of the respondent had in fact been continued after the expiry of the 2 months period for which he had been appointed with effect from 21st April, 1980, he would have received wages for the said period and it would not have been difficult for the respondent to prove the payment of the wages to him, but no such evidence has come on record.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the services of the respondent stood terminated on expiry of 2 months period from 21st April, 1980, and there is no tangible evidence in support of his contention that his services were continued up to 28th August, 1980. The respondent thus was required to serve the necessary grievance notice upon the appellants within 3 months of the termination of his services and to file his grievance petition within 5 1/2 months of the termination of services.
However, as the grievance notice was served beyond the aforesaid period of 3 months and the grievance petition was filed beyond the period of 5 1/2 months, both the grievance notice and the grievance petition are time-barred.
6. It was finally claimed by Mr. Wahid Bux that persons junior to the respondent had been retained when the services of the respondent were terminated. Again, there is no evidence to substantiate this contention of the respondent. He has even failed to name a single such person who has been retained in service. As such, his bare statement in this behalf cannot be accepted as it was strongly denied by the appellants.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would allow the appeal and set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court.