This is an appeal under section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, against an order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 22nd August 1968. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The appellant, at the time when his services,, were terminated by the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Sukkur, was in permanent employment of the Govern--ment Transport Service, Sukkur. His services were terminated on 13th December 1967, under Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960.
3. The only contention that has been made by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, is that the order of -the District Manager dated 13th December 1967, is in violation of the terms of service of the appellant, inasmuch as his services were terminated without sufficient cause. In order to appreciate the contention on behalf of the appellant, it would be useful to reproduce the order of the District Manager, dated 13th December 1967, which runs as under:-- "Under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, the services of Conductor Abdul Halim son of Abdul Hakim are terminated w. e. f. 13-12-1967, one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice, as provided in the said Standing Order is hereby allowed to hint w. e. f. 14-12-1967".
4. It is true under Order 12 of the Standing Orders the employment of a permanent workman could be terminated on a mouth's notice or a month's pay in lieu of notice. On behalf of the appellant, however, reliance has been placed on the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. The Ordinance was promulgated on 30th June 1961, by the President Section 7 of the v Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961, reads as under:- "(1) The services of a worker shali not be terminated without sufficient cause nor unless and until one month's previous notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof has been given to him and he has been paid his pay for any period of leave admissible to him of which he did not avail himself while in service.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall, apply to the case of a worker whose services are terminated on account of his having been found guilty of misconduct."
5. Mr. Qureshi laid emphasis, on the provision reproduced above that the appellant services who was a permanent Conductor, could not be terminated without sufficient cause. On the other hand, Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the Government Transport Service, contended in the first place, that the service of the appellant had been terminated in compliance with the law embodied Order 12 of the Standing Orders. It is true that the services of the appellant had been terminated under the provisions of the said Standing Orders. The question, however, is as to whether the provisions of the Standing Orders overrule the provisions of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. There is indication in the Standing Orders Ordinance itself that the intention of the framers of the Ordinance was not to override any provision of law, which gave- more favourable terms to a workman. In this connection, reference may be made to section 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1960. It reads as under:- "Nothing in this Ordinance shall affect any law, custom, usage, award or agreement in force immediately before the promulgation of this Ordinance, in so far as such law, custom, usage, award or agreement ensures conditions of employment more favourable to workmen than those provided in the Standing Orders."
6. The above provision would not wholly be applicable as the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, is of the year 1961. The Road Transport Workers Ordinance being of the latter year than the Standing Orders Ordinance, will have application in preference to the Standing Orders of 1960. I am of the view that the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance must be read along with the provisions of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. The provision made in the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, would be deemed to form the contract of service of an employee and thus binding on the employer.
7. The appellant was admittedly in permanent service. The position also appears to be, as would appear from the statement of Mr. Iqbal Mirza, Office Superintendent, Government Transport Service, Sukkur that the services of the appellant were terminated not for any sufficient cause. Mr. Iqbal Mirza stated before the Industrial Court that there was no retrenchment in the numbers of Conductors at the time when the appellant was discharged from service. Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi stated that there must be some reason why the appellant was discharged service. I cannot accept this statement at the bar without there being anything on the record. So far as the record is concerned, there is the statement of Mr. Iqbal Mirza alone on behalf of the Government Transport Services. He admitted that the appellant was a permanent Conductor and there was no re- trenchment in the number of Conductor at that time. If that as the position, the conclusion is inescapable that the appellant was discharged from service without any sufficient cause with in the meaning of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance1961.
8. Mr. Sirajul Hlaq in the next place relied on the case of Karnaphully Paper Mills Limited v.
Karnaphully Paper Mills Workers` Union and others (1). He contended that the Ordinary rule of master and servant was applicable to the case of the Cornelius, E. J., in that case, observed as under; "But in the case of private employment, the ordinary rule of master and servant must be sustained, namely, that without cause assigned the master may dispense with the services of the servant with notice or on payment of salary in lieu of notice. The servant may equally exercise the power of relinquishing his appointment on similar terms "
9. The question is as to whether the employment of the appellant can be said to be a private employment so as to attract the principle of master and servant. In my opinion, the ordinary rule of master and servant would not be applicable to the case of the employees of the Government Transport Service, which has got its own rules as to the terms and conditions of employment of its workers. The Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961, embodies certain terms and condition in respect of the employment of the workmen of the Government Transport Service. So long as the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961, stands, the employment of a workman of the Government Transport Service cannot be terminated except in accordance with the terms and conditions provided therein. At any rate, even the employment under the Government Transport Service may be said to be a private employment, the employer will be bound by the terms and conditions on which the employs a person. In. the case of a worker under the Government Transport Service, some of his terms and condition of service are embodied under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnaphully Paper Mills do not lay down that a private employer is not bound by the terms and conditions of servant on which he employs a person. The liability of an employer will be governed by the terms and condition of service is not bound he employs a person:
10. For the reasons given above, I. would allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 22nd August 1968, and cider that the appellant be re-insttated.
(1) 1961 PLC 991