DECISION ' This appeal is against the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. 5, Karachi, dated 19-4-1988, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was workman employed with the respondent whose services are alleged to have been orally terminated on 1-10-1987. After serving grievance notice upon the respondent he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant was working alongwith two other workers in their Tandoor. They, however, closed their Tandoori Section from 1-10-1987 and consequently they terminated services of the three workers in the Tandoor by written order and also paid them one month's salary in lieu of notice. It was submitted that the appellant refused to accept the termination order and, therefore, it was sent on the address available with the respondent which was returned unnerved.
4. I have heard Mr. Raja Shamsuz Zaman, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Mirza, representative for the respondent.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no order in writing terminating the services of the appellant was passed or communicated to the appellant. The respondents have produced before the learned Labour Court in their evidence copies of order of termination of service which is Exh. R-1 alongwith Registered A.D. Postal cover which was returned un served and which is Exh. R-3. The appellant in the cross-examination has admitted that he had given his address to the respondent as C/230, Jehangir Road, West Patel Para, Karachi-5'. He also admitted that there was no change of address during the time he was in service with the respondent, but in the month of October, 1987 he was not residing at 'Patel Para' but was residing in Orange Town.' He has admitted letter/postal cover Exh. R-3 is addressed on 'Patel Para' address of the appellant. He has not stated that after shifting to Orangi Town' he had communicated his address to the appellant. The dispatch of the termination order by registered post on the last known address of the appellant would be good service in the circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on PLD 1981 SC 225.
6. This order of termination of service is dated 30-9-1987 and it showed that respondents had discontinued the Tandoori Section and the services of the appellant had become redundant from 1-10-1987 and therefore his services were terminated with effect from 30-9-1987. It also informed him that he would be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice and was directed to collect his dues from the Accounts Department.
7. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent in this alleged letter of termination had not given the reasons as to why this Tandoori Section was closed.
Standing Order 12(3) only requires the employer to give reason as to why he was retrenching or discharging the workman. This reason has been given in Order as closure of Tandoori Section. The provision of Standing Order 12(3) does not require the employer to give reason for closure of the Tandoori Section because of which services of the employee were terminated.
8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tandoori Section has not been closed but the appellant had been removed from service because he was active member of C.BA. Union. In the cross-examination he had admitted that he was not office-bearer of the union.
There is no evidence on record that any office-bearer or any other workman for that reasons has been removed from service by the respondent.
9. The witness of the respondent Malik Khalil has stated in his affidavit-in evidence that from 1-10- 1987 the Tandoor in the respondent's hotel is not functioning nor they have employed any person in place of three workers including applicant for operating the Tandoor. No doubt it has come in the cross-examination of the witness that they still serve Tandoori Nans in the hotel but he stated that they purchase the same from outside. The appellant himself admitted in the cross-examination that from 1-10-1987 he has not seen the Tandoor working. In his support he had produced two witnesses namely Mahmood All and Sabir Hussain who claim to be room-bearers of the respondent and state that the customers of the hotel are being served with Tandoori Roti and that it was not correct that the respondent had closed down Tandoori Section in the hotel. They have, further stated that the work of the appellant was being taken from newly appointed persons of Jabees Hotel. In the cross-examination Mehmood All has stated that he cannot give the name of newly-appointed Tandoor Wala. P.V. Sabir Hussain has admitted in the cross-examination that he does not know if any person is appointed as Tandoor Wala in the place of the appellant. He himself has not seen if the Tandoor is functioning. The evidence of Malik Khalil with regard the other two workers who are working with the appellant and were removed from service for same reason has gone un-challenged. There is nothing on record to show that those two persons had moved grievance application against their removal. There is no convincing evidence to show that Tandoori Section has not been closed by the respondents.
10. For the aforesaid reason I see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.