This appeal. Is directed against the decision of the learned IVth Labour Court dismissing the appellant's grievances petition against the termination of his services by the respondent establishment.
2. The appellant, by the letter of appointment, dated 12th March, 1981, was appointed as Assistant Store-keeper in the respondent establish--ment on daily wages at the rate of Rs.15 per day. It was expressly stated. In the said letter of appointment that the engagement was purely of a temporary nature.' It has been explained by Gulbaz, the Manager of the respondent establishment, that the engagement of the appellant on temporary nature was necessited on account of dismissal from service of 2 Assistant Store=keepers, Mirza Zahid Baig and Ghulam Mustafa. How--ever, one of the Assistant Storer-keepers, Mirza Zabid Baig, has since been ordered to be reinstated in service by the learned Labour Court . In consequence of his' re-instatement in service, the services of the appellant were terminated by the order, dated 13th July, 1982, and he was asked to collect his accrued wages from the respondent establishment. Aggrieved by the termination of his services, the appellant preferred a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court but the same has been dismissed as already indicated. '
3. It was contended by Mr. Khadim Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant is deemed to have become a permanent workman by reason of the fact that he served in the. Respondent establish--ment for more than one year. It may, however, be pointed out that even according to the letter of appointment of the appellant. Be was employed on purely temporary basis and on daily wages presumably because it was feared that one or both of the dismissed Assistant Store-keepers may be ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court. Assuming, however, that the employment of the appellant had become permanent in terms of the Standing Orders, then also the respondent establishment was justified in terminating the services of the appellant by reason of the admitted fact that a dismissed Assistant Store-keeper, Zahid Baig, had been directed bay the learned Labour Court to be re-instated in service. Clauses (1) and (3) of Standing Order 12 provide that even the services of a permanent workman can be terminated provided, firstly, that the workman is either given notice of one month if the termination of his services or alternatively pay for the notice period secondly, the order of termination of his services is in writing ; and thirdly, the order specifically states the reasons for the termination of services. All the 3 requirements of Standing Order 12 appear to have been fulfilled in the instant case. The order is in writing and expressly states that the services of the appellant have been terminated by reason of reinstatement, under the orders of Labour Court , of Mir Zahid Baig. Furthermore, .The order terminating the services of the appellant provides that the appellant should collect his dues. These due would include the wages for the notice period as provided under clause (1) of Standing Order 12.
4. In view of the above position, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.