The decision, dated 28-4-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The ground on which the services of the respondent were terminated were that she failed to be faithful to her duties and disobeyed the order of the Vice-Chairman on 14-6-1984 in connection with discharge of official duties. She was neither charge-sheeted nor any inquiry was held. Even the nature of the order of the Vice-Chairman which the respondent is alleged to have disobeyed was not disclosed.
3. It has been argued that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable and that the rules framed under Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 apply, according to which, the respondent was taken in service on two years probation and thus was rightly and legally terminated without giving any reason within that period. According to proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance is not applicable to an establishment which is being run by or under the authority of any Government and has statutory rules of service or discipline. Admittedly, the appellant Committee is not being run by any Government. There is nothing on the record to show that it is running under the authority of the Government. No rules I framed or adopted by the appellant are on the record. So Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. According to Standing Order 1, the period of probation is three months and not two years. If in any rules framed under the Local Government Ordinance, 1979 the period of probation is two years, since it does not provide that not Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but those rules apply, the period of probation was that which is provided by Standing Order 1 and on expiry of the said period, the respondent stood confirmed and nice the allegation was of disobedience of the orders of the Vice-Chairman, giving of show-cause notice and holding of inquiry were necessary. The respondent was, therefore, rightly directed to be re-instated in service.
4. However, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits as she did not assert that she after being terminated from service remained jobless., As a result the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.
A.E.