DECISION The two appellants were employed in the respondent establishment, namely, Thatta Cement Company Ltd., Makli. They were admittedly convicted on 3-3-1983 by a Summary Military Court.
Respondents terminated the services of both these appellants by letter, dated 13-4-1983 under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Grievance notices were given and sent by the appellants and thereafter grievance petitions were filed before the Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who passed the impugned order on 24-7-1985.
2. In the reply statement, the respondents' plea is that both the appellants were convicted and sentenced for one year imprisonment with lashes and since due to their imprisonment in Jail, the posts could not be kept vacant, their services were terminated while exercising the powers conferred under Standing Order 12.
3. The appellants filed their own affidavits while the affidavit of Mahmood Ahmad Abro was filed on behalf of the respondent establishment.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records of the learned Labour Court, while none was present on behalf of the respondent establishment.
5. It is stated by the respondents that grievance notice was not received by them, w1ile the appellants state that they delivered the grievance notices to one person in the respondent establishment. There is a word against the word and I believe that the appellants are to be believed as they had delivered the grievance notices to the respondent establishment. It does not matter if the appellants do not show the name to whom they had delivered the notices, but there are scrambles on the notices to show the initials on the notices having been received by the respondent establishment. It is always better side of things to believe the appellants when they have asserted positively that the notices were served on the respondent establishment. I believe that the notices were served.
6. The main reason for ousting the people away from the respondent establishment was that the Summary Military Court had convicted both the appellants for 12 months. This was an ordinary arrest of the people and these two appellants were amongst those who unfortunately were mixed up and they were sentenced for 12 months. The respondent establishment finding that the appellants were in Jail, therefore, they managed to oust them and terminate their services under Standing Order 12(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Abdul Hafiz was released after six months while the other, Mushtaq Ahmad was released on 11-5-1983. Mushtaq Ahmad seems to be an active member of the trade union which is the Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent establishment. The respondents, according to him, mala fidely got him implicated in the case and got him convicted on 3-3-1983 for 12 months. In the cross-examination, the appellant Mushtaq Ahmad stated that he is victim of mala fides of the respondent establishment. So also Abdul Hafiz has stated that he is the Joint Secretary of Thatta Cement Employees Union which is the Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent establishment and it was due to this that he was victimized. It appears that the two appellants were arrested by Police by showing that they were the members of the procession and it had got them convicted by Summary Military Court.
7. In these cases the dismissals were on account of conviction but no formalities were observed and hence, the termination of the appellants was illegal. No doubt, their termination was made under Standing Order 12(1), but this was a colourable excuse for their termination and it should have been regular enquiry because they were members of the C.B.A. In the respondent establishment. The impugned order, therefore does not read well. Their termination under Standing Order 12 without showing any reason for such a termination is illegal. The order of termination mentions their convictions by Summary Military Court. But the Military Court released them after service of six months imprisonment. Anyhow the basis is made of the conviction by the Military Court for termination of these persons and the posts to which they were assigned are not known as to what posts were. I have considered these matters at length and am of the opinion that these appellants were terminated because they were C.B'.A. Members.
8. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and allow these two appeals and direct that these two appellants be re-instated in service forthwith by the respondent establishment. However, 50% (fifty per cent) back benefits are to be given to the appellants immediately.