The decision dated 25-10-1984 has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service.
2. The respondent was appointed as badli conductor on 16-4-1983. His services were terminated as no longer required on 20-9-1983. The respondent served as conductor continuously during the abovementioned period. As the period exceeds 90 days, the respondent had become permanent under Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The juniors of the respondent namely Shakeel, Tahir Mahmood, Ashiq Ali and Rafiq Baig were retained in service. There were allegations of misappropriation of bus fare also but neither any charge sheet was given, nor any inquiry was held. On these grounds the learned lower Court has accepted the grievance petition.
3. It has been argued that according to section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, Standing Order is not applicable and thus the respondent did not become permanent on completing 90 days' service continuously. The argument is devoid of any force. No doubt, section 7 of the abovementioned Ordinance has not made Standing Order 1 applicable to transport service but section is meant for those establishments to which otherwise Standing Orders Ordinance vide its A section 1(4)(c) does not apply. According to section 1(4)(c) (supra), Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to establishments, the number of employees of which is 20 or more So the road transport service, the employees of which are less than 20 are exempted from the application of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This is not the case of the appellant that its employees are less than 20. So the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to the appellant and section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance is not helpful. Since the respondent became permanent on completing 90 days continuous service as badli conductor, he became permanent and could not be terminated from service on the allegation of misconduct without framing a charge and holding inquiry. If the order of termination is taken as a termination simpliciter even then it was not maintainable as the juniors of the respondent were retained in service in violation of Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. So the respondent has been rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.
A. E.