DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 5-1-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on 7-10-1985 as a Security Guard, a permanent post for a probation of 90 days in the respondent establishment. The appellant claimed that he used to note the meter readings, search the persons and the vehicles, coming in and going out of the establishment which was physical duty distinguished from intellectual work or incidental to any intellectual work. He claimed that on 23-10-1985 he met with an accident and was admitted in Social Security Hospital as indoor patient till 7-1-1986 on the issuance of Form B-2 by the respondent establishment, hence, after expiry of the granted medical leave, he resumed the duty on 9-1-1986. The appellant claimed that though he had sustained injuries in the bus outside the premises as he was on way to perform his duties, yet, all of a sudden he received the termination order of his services which was illegal and not passed by the competent authority.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that being a Security Guard, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance or the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to him and that his services were terminated on 4-1-1986 before completion of the probationary period or its confirmation. The respondent establishment claimed that the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard the appellant, who is present in person and Mr. Sher Afghan, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case.
6. It was contended by the appellant in his memo. Of appeal that his duties were to search vehicles and persons, coming in and going out of the factory and reading of the meters which were part of the duties of a watchman/security guard, therefore, he was not a workman, as has been held by the learned Labour Court, was misconception of law. It was also contended that the learned Labour Court has erred in holding that probationer, even if receiving sickness benefits from Social Security Institution was not protected like permanent workers under section 72 of Social Security Ordinance and that inability and shortcomings, defined as misconduct, if dissatisfies an employer, then, he had a right to terminate the services, as simplicity, without any charge-sheet or an enquiry is not a proper and lawful conclusion of the learned Labour Court. I see no force in these contentions of the appellant. It is an admitted position, not only the appellant himself, but, also by the other witnesses, that the appellant had worked in the establishment only for 13 days and that there is no direct evidence to prove on behalf of the appellant that he was doing any sort of manual work to prove that he is a workman. In view of the facts and evidence brought on record and considering the legal aspects, I find that the appellant has no case and would hold that the learned Labor Court was quite right in passing a well-reasoned impugned order. Mr. Sher Afghan the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment had fully supported the impugned order and had nothing to add to what he had submitted before the learned Labor Court.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.