' This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 30-4-1983. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance application of the appellant, Ghulam Ahmad.
2. The facts are that the appellant was recruited as a Head Clerk or Record Head Clerk with the Island Textile Mills Ltd. The Island Textile Mills re-organized and that they found that the post of Record Head Clerk or Head Clerk was not needed and hence they passed the order of his removal from service on 1-6-1982. The removal order is as under:- "Your services are no longer required. Therefore, your services are hereby terminated with effect from 1st June, 1982. You may collect your dues including one month's pay in lieu of notice."
3. The appellant, however, gave the notice of grievance and then the regular grievance application was filed. The stand of the respondents is that the grievance application is not maintainable.
Services of the appellant were terminated on 1-6-1982 on account of re-organization and abolition of the post.
4. Before the learned Labour Court, the counsel of the appellant argued that initially the appointment of the appellant was as a Clerk and hence instead of being retrenched he should, have been reverted. His contention was not substantiated in the Labour Court. The appellant should have produced in Court the order about his initial appointment. His averment in the Labour Court was that he served as a Head Clerk for 7 years and that he was initially appointed as Head Clerk. The non-production of an order that he was initially recruited as a clerk raises adverse inference. The Labour Court found that this was an afterthought. The main point raised 'by the appellant's counsel is that the order of removal from service suffers from the lacuna that it has not given the reason of his being removed from the service. It was argued by the other side that what reasons could be given than what are contained in the removal order that his services are no longer required. It is further amplified in the course of evidence that re-organization has taken place and that the post of Head Clerk was abolished. The employer can re-organize and abolish the post which is not beneficial to it. Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, is as follows:- "12(3)-- 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 is 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."
5. In the instant case an order in writing is given but the objection is that it has not explicitly stated the reasons for the removal. If we look back in the order of the management, the reason is given that his services are no longer required. This is enough reason. It is not necessary to give an elaborate and lengthy reasoning for the removal of the appellant.
6. I find that there is no force in the appeal and I maintain the order of the learned Labour Court.
7. The appeal is hereby dismissed.