' The decision dated 16th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent, who was a godown Chowkidar, was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. According to appointment letter Exh. P. A , the respondent was temporarily appointed as godown Chowkidar for two months on 3rd November, 1980 Termination order is Exh. P. B. Dated 16th May, 1981. The case of appellant is that for two months the respondent was employed and on the expiry of his service he was terminated and after gaps whenever his services were required again in the Paddy season, he was again employed temporarily. But besides Exh. P. A. There is no other appointment order on the file. There is no appointment or termination order between 3rd November, 1980 (date of appointment) and 16th May, 1981 (date of termination). This shows that the plea that after every two months the services of the respondent were terminated, stands falsified. From 3rd November, 1980 to 16th May, 1981 the respondent remained in service for about 62 months and not for two months. Besides Exh. P. B. There is only one more termination order which is Exh. R. C. Dated 16th April, 1980, meaning that before this date the respondent was appointed. If the contention of the appellant had been correct that every time the respondent was kept in service for two months only, order of appointment right from the date the respondent was for the first time appointed and all the termination orders bad been brought on tile file.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that without deciding whether the respondent was a temporary or permanent employee, it could not be decided who was competent to terminate his services. He also says that since the respondent was a temporary employee, the Assistant Vice- President was not the appointing authority. If this is so, then the respondent may be a permanent employee, because he was appointed by the Assistant Vice-President- vide order Exh. R. A. Learned counsel has also argued that if Assistant Vice-President was the competent authority then the Manager terminated the services of the respondent under the instructions of the Assistant Vice- President. He has made reference to letter Exh. P. A. This letter is doubtful. It is dated 14th May, 1981.
The date of termination letter Exh. P. B. Is tampered with. The date was ten or twelve and was changed into sixteen to cover the mistake and to show that the order Exh. P. B. Was passed before letter Exh. R. A. Dated 14th May, 1981 was issued. Moreover, Exh. P. A. Did not delegate powers of termination to the Manager. The Manager could convey an order of termination but could not pass such order, unless the powers were delegated to him. Since the respondent was appointed by the Assistant Vice-President, only he could terminate him and as the order of termination Exh. P. B. Was passed by the Manager without the delegation of powers to terminate, the order is without jurisdiction. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly held A that the Manager was not competent to pass order of termination and rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent in service without back benefits.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same ex parte.