DECISION These are two separate appeals filed by the appellant, against a common impugned order, dated 26-10-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the respondents workmen under section 25- A, I.R.O., 1969. As, the facts and circumstances in both these appeals are common and similar and there is also a joint impugned order, therefore, I propose to decide both these appeals by this single decision.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that respondent, Dhani Bux was appointed as Works Mistry in the appellants' Establishment in the year 1978, while the respondent Amir Bux was also appointed as Works Mistry in the year 1978, and both these respondents continued in their employments upto 1- 4-1985, when their services were terminated. The respondents challenged their termination of services as illegal, void, mala fide and against the principles of Natural Justice, through the grievance petitions before the Labour Court
3. The appellant resisted these petitions on the ground that the respondents were appointed purely on temporary basis for a particular job and scheme and since the project was not of a permanent nature, their services were terminated, hence, they were not entitled to claim any relief, thus, the grievance petitions were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed both the grievance petitions directing the appellant to re-instate the respondents Workman in their services with full back benefits, hence, these appeals.
5. I have heard Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned Advocate for the appellant Executive Engineer and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent workmen and have perused the record and proceedings of the case. The learned Labour Court had framed following two issues:--
(i) Whether the appellants were temporary or permanent employees and
(ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent was ultra vires and illegal?
Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel on behalf of both the respondent workmen had contended that the termination order in both the cases, was not sustainable in Law for the reasons:-
(a) that the applicants (respondents herein) having worked for years together on fixed wages, thus have attained the status of permanent workmen,
(b) that the termination order did not contain explicit reason,
(c) that the termination order is violative of statutory provisions of Law,
(d) that the termination order is against the principle of Natural Justice, and
(e) that the services of the respondents were terminated only due to their trade union activities.
Mr. Shabbir Awan, the learned counsel has further argued that the respondents were employed in the year 1978 on fixed wages and were in continuous employment till 1-4-1985, when their services were terminated, therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 2-G, subsection 1(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, both these respondent workmen had attained the status of permanent workmen. In this respect, Mr. Shabbir Awan has referred me to a judgment reported in 1984 PLC 1152. After careful perusal of this authority as well as considering the factual position of these cases, I would hold that both the respondents were permanent workmen of the appellant and were not work-charged employees therefore, they were entitled to maintain their grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. It was lastly argued by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent workmen that under Standing Order 12(3), there is a mandatory requirement of Law that the termination order should not only be in writing, but, it should also give explicit reasons. In both termination orders of the respondent workmen, the appellant Management had failed to mention explicit reasons of termination of services. Mere mention of the words "the services of the applicants are no more required w.e.f. 1-4-1985" is not a lawful and proper termination in the eyes of Law. In a number of authorities of this Tribunal, the same view has been consistently taken. I, therefore, hold the same view in both these appeals also.
Thus, the termination order of the services of both these respondent workmen are set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that since the project where the respondents were lastly working, was not of permanent nature and they both were employed on work-charged establishment, therefore, they have no right to remain in service or to maintain their grievance petitions. I see no force in this contention of Mr. Hassan Hameedi, in view of the above admitted legal and factual positions. Mr. Hassan Hameedi has further submitted that due to non-availability of the funds, the services of the respondent workmen were terminated. There is an admitted position that after termination of the services of both these respondent workmen, two persons, namely, Nasrullah son of Muhammad. 15 hrs and Ali Nawaz sons of Amir Bux were appointed as Works Mistry on 6-5-1985 and 1-7-1985 respectively. Thus, this plea of the appellant Establishment is also belied by its own record. In view of this factual position on record. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan has contended that both the respondent workmen were active workers of the trade union, so, they were picked and chose to be victimized mainly for this reason. I would, therefore, hold the termination of services of both these respondents as mala fide and victimization, thus, not proper and lawful.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere' with .The impugned order, dated 26-10-1986, and would maintain it. Both these appeals are hereby dismissed. Both the respondent workmen are directed to be re-instated in their respective services with full back benefits within one month of this decision.
M.Y.H. /902/Lb.