' ABDUL SHAICURUL SALAM, J.-This order will dispose of Writ Petition No, 5225 of 1984 and Writ Petition N o. 5226 of 1984 as these arise in similar circumstances.
2. The petitioners were the employee for loading and unloading of Fertilizer Products by M/s. Ayul, and Company, contractors of the Dawood Hercules Limited. They worked for 8/9 years, The contractors were replaced by the respondent No,
2. It appears that there arose differences between the employees and the respondent No,
1. The Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Sheikhupura, intervened and the respondent agreed to keep the permanent workers of Ayub and Company as well as workers on piece rate basis, on their usual terms. This is dated 3-6-1980.
Sometime later, according to the petitioners, they were stopped from entering the factory and performing their duties. They filed applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking direction to the respondent for allowing them to perform their duties, inter alia on the ground that neither any inquiry was held nor any order terminating their services was passed but orally the petitioners had been stopped from entering the premises and to perform their duties. The case of the respondent was that termination orders were passed and also communicated to the petitioners, After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court held that "the termination order and the postal receipt are, therefore, of no help to the respondent to show that the petition is time-barred or that services of the petitioners were in fact terminated. The termination order and the postal receipt both appear to have been fabricated to defeat the case of the petitioners, The man who passed that order did not appear in the witness box nor any postal clerk was produced to satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the termination order/postal receipt." Finally, the learned Labour Court accepted the grievance petitions and directed reinstatement of the petitioners but without back benefits.
This is vide order dated 29-9-1983. The petitioners appealed for back benefits and the respondent against the order of reinstatement of the petitioners, The learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioners and accepted those of the respondents vide order dated 28-1-1984. Hence, these constitutional petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the learned Labour Court had found that the termination orders as well as postal receipt were fabricated to defeat the case of the petitioners, Without examination of the finding as to whether the termination orders were fabricated or not, the learned Appellate Tribunal fell into error in taking it for granted and proceeding on the basis that termination orders were passed in time. It was, secondly, contended that the learned Labour Court had held that postal receipts for dispatch of the termination orders to the petitioners were fabricated. The finding was not reversed by the learned Appellate Tribunal.
Rather, its consequence was accepted when it was held by the learned Appellate Tribunal that "so the finding of the learned lower Court is correct that the termination order was not served."
Notwithstanding that, petitioners' grievance petitions were dismissed. It is submitted it was illegal.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No, 2 vehemently contended that the learned Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the services of the petitioners were terminated by means of written orders and that service thereof on the petitioners was not required by law. He submitted that when service is to be effected on an employee, it is expressly provided for. He read out from para. 12(3) of the Schedule (Standing Orders) with the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (Ordinance VI of 1968) to the following effect :- "The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman if aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance."
The learned counsel for the respondent is quite right that the provision he read says that the services of a workman shall not be terminated except by an order in writing. Two points are to be noted. First : that the learned Labour Court had recorded a finding in each case that the termination order was fabricated. The finding was neither examined nor set aside. It was taken for granted that there were orders of terminations in writing. This was not quite right. Second : the contention that termination orders did not require communication because the provision the learned counsel for the respondent read did not say so is not sound at all. The provision requires that an order of termination shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken so that a workman aggrieved of the termination can have recourse to the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. If the orders of termination were not to be communicated there was no reason to provide for giving reasons and, secondly, the second sentence of the provision that the workman may have recourse under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would be rendered redundant because without an order of termination being given to him, how could a workman go to a Court and ask for setting aside something B which is not there? Legal provisions have to be interpreted in a reasonable manner to give effect to their purpose. Letter of law cannot be interpreted in isolation divorced from its spirit. If the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent were correct that an order of termination in writing without communication is effective in terminating the services of an employee, it will be possible for an employer to write an order of termination of the services of an employee and put it in his office drawer for any length of time.
Take it out when his fancy flies or when the employee displeases him and say that his services were terminated long ago and here is the order of termination of his services which he never communicated nor was willing to serve it on him. What can the employee do ? Just see and stare ?
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that without communication of termination order that is effective is totally devoid of substance. The impugned order reversing the decision of the learned Labour Court holding that termination order and postal receipts were fabricated to defeat the case of the petitioners, without examination of the first finding and in spit of upholding that the termination order was not served, is clearly without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is so declared. The petition are allowed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.