DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of the 3rd Sind Labour Court at Karachi, who by his order, dated 23rd November, 1983, dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, filed by the appellant.
2. By an order, dated 17th January, 1985, I had set aside the order of the Labour Court for the reasons to be given later on. Following are the reasons.
3. The facts that gave rise to the present appeal are briefly that the appellant was a skilled Spray Painter and that he was appointed on contract basis for 9 months on 25th March, 1982, by the Karachi Transport Corporation. After completion of the contract period of 9 months his services were dispensed with. A letter, dated 28th December, 1982 was sent to the appellant whereby he was offered the same post on probation of 3 months. He was ordered to resume duty on 1st January, 1983 in case the offer of further appointment is accepted to him. The appellant accepted the post and resumed duties on 1st January, 1983. Then, suddenly on 27th March, 1983 his services were terminated by a letter, Annexure A/9 of the record of the Labour Court. On the next day the appellant preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the respondent establishment.
Although the appeal was strongly recommended by the Works Manager and Incharge of the Workshop, yet he was not heeded to further and therefore, he gave a notice under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969. Thereafter he filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court, who dismissed it.
4. I have heard the learned representative, Mr. Mahmood Mubassir for the appellant and Mr. Raza Hussain Hydri for the respondent. The affidavit filed by the appellant, Muhammad Shakir is at Annexure 53 and the affidavit, filed by Islam Ahmad Khan on behalf of the respondent- establishment, is at Annexure 75 of the record of the Labour Court. I have perused the affidavits and cross-examinations thereof. Mr. Islam Ahmad Khan in the cross-examination has admitted that the appellant was dismissed during the period of probation. There were complaints against him. The appellant was a criminal type of man, quarrelsome, unpunctual and habitual later-comer.
These are the remarks in the cross-examination of the respondents.
5. The learned representative for the appellant has pointed out clearly that he was admittedly dismissed due to misconduct and as such there should have been an enquiry under Standing Order 15, even though he was designated as a probationer. In his arguments, the representative of the appellant criticised the conduct of the respondents specially in reference to the first appointment of the appellant for 9 months and then terminating his services and re-appointing him on probation. He pointed out the endorsement made in his appeal by the Works Manager, "the individual is no doubt the best painter we had in Korangi Depot. His services were terminated for misconduct, Still, if he is willing to behave in the desired manner, he may be condoned on undertaking to that effect." The learned representative further pointed out that although he was a good worker, his appeal was recommended but he was not taken up by the respondent- establishment. The words "misconduct" even appear in the note of recommendations. It has been further argued that the initial appointment under the contract of 9 months the appellant faired well and that there was no need to appoint him as a probationer by a second appointment order.
These two orders were criticised by the learned representative of the appellant inasmuch as it is pointed out that the two orders 'were designed to oust the worker from the job maliciously as he has picked up quarrel with one Jaleel Bair There is no proof that these two orders are issued to manipulate - the termination of the services of the appellant but it does give rise to a shrewd suspicion that the termination of service of the appellant was under clever contrivance.
6. But the legal point is very clear that even though the appellant was a probationer, yet his services may not be dismissed unless having recourse to the procedure, prescribed in Standing Order 15. In support of this view I rely on the reported case Malik Inam Khawaja Autos (1) It is admitted that he was dismissed for misbehaviour and misconduct by the respondent in his evidence. It is further corroborated that an endorsement on the appeal of the appellant is made by the Works Manager that he was dismissed. Simple termination on the grounds that he was a probationer is unwarranted and the legal procedure has got to be adopted. The procedure under Standing Order 15 must be followed.
7. In the end, I set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court and hereby order that the appellant be re-instated forthwith with all back benefits. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 PLC 602 {{FOOT NOTE}}