1. ' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Presiding Officer-III Labour Court Baluchistan, Quetta in Application No,37 of 1984 whereby the grievance petition of respondent Khawaja Masroor Ahmed son of Sirajuddin challenging the termination of service was allowed and has been directed his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Presiding Officer set aside the termination order on the ground that the respondent had attained the status of a permanent worker and that no notice for termination was served in writing.
2. ' The respondent was employed with the Fauji Polypropylene Products Hub on 4-2-1984 against column 12 Service Commitment Exh. A/1 it was stated therein that "Your service will be on probation for first three months which can be terminated during probation period without notice". This probationary period expired on 4-5-1984. No order in writing during this proposed period was passed by the management nor served on the respondent but his services were terminated with effect from 26th May, 1985. The respondent being aggrieved with his termination issued a notice on 31-5-1984 and brought his grievance to the notice of the employer and claimed reinstatement, with back benefits. The grievance was not redressed accordingly an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. Was filed before the Labour Court on 24-7-1984 and it was prayed, that he may be reinstated in service from 26-5-1984 with all back benefits, and the impugned order i,e, the termination order has been set aside and the appellant has been directed to reinstate the respondent with all back benefits.
3. ' Against this decision the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent was only a probationer as such he had no right guaranteed under Standing Orders Ordinance. In that connection he has placed reliance on an order dated 12-5-1984 by which the probationary period was extended but the learned counsel was frank enough to admit that there was a confidential report made by an Officer dated 28-4-1984 wherein it was said that the respondent had showed no interest with the job and in spite of 15 days notice in advance the respondent did not show any improvement. Still the significant aspect of the case is that the service of the respondent was terminated by a verbal order. The learned counsel further contends that whenever the word workman is used it refers to permanent workman only and not probationary so the reliance of Presiding Officer on Standing Order 12(3) is misconceived. The definition of probationer is given in Standing Order 1(C) and reads:- 1(C). A "probationer" is as workman who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy in a post and has not completed three months' service therein.
5. ' In Messrs Dawood Hosiery Mills Karachi v. Hazrat Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others 1975 PLC 48 Mr. Justice Abdul Hayee Kureshi (as he then was) has held that even if the employer condoned misconduct, so as to punish the workman by simple terminate of services rather than dismissal still such termination order together with reasons had to be communicated to the workman. It has been further laid down that the termination order has to be in writing and it must disclose the case of termination.
6. ' In the instant case as already pointed out the respondent was placed on probation only for three months. In view of the definition of probationer as quoted above the respondent had attained the status of a permanent workman because a permanent workman is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months. I am of view that the appellant had no powers to extend this period of three months. All that could be done was that if his services were not found satisfactory during the initial period of three months the services could be terminated but beyond that there was no powers of the appellant to extend this period and on the date when this probationary period was extended three months had already expired. This order too was not served on the respondent. The allegation that his services were terminated because his work was not found satisfactory, is also not believable for the simple reason that the appellant had a chance to termination the service if there was really any report (such a report was never communicated to the respondent). The learned counsel has relied on Messrs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. , Karachi v. Rafiq M. Wall and two others 1976 PLC 181. This case had been distinguished by learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind in Messrs Nawaz & Co. , Karachi v. Rustam and 2nd others 1981 PLC 687 where it has been laid down that essential pre-condition for terminating the services of any workman i,e, permanent, temporary, Badli or probationer, is the issuance of an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In the instant case the representative of appellant Mr. Qasim Rabbani, Manager Personel and Administration of the appellant Management has admitted that:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' This is a clear violation of the provision of Standing Order 12(3). The termination of services of responde.Nt No,2 was certainly invalid.
7. For the above reasons I find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. The decision of the Labour Court is sustained. The respondent shall be reinstated forthwith with all back benefits. The amount of Rs,7,000 deposited by the appellant in terms of the order dated 27-1-1985 would be paid to the respondent and this amount would be adjusted against the payment found due on the reinstatement of the respondent. Since the respondent has been dragged to defend this appeal from Karachi he shall also be entitled to costs which is fixed at Rs,500.