DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30-4-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 directing his reinstatement in service as Muawan with full back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed that he was a permanent workman of the appellant's establishment having been appointed as Helper on 2-1-1982 and subsequently promoted as S.S.Fitter and that all of a sudden, without any charge-sheet or an enquiry, he was refused duty on 29-4-1984 and further that since December, 1983 he was being paid Rs,55 less than his salary. Being aggrieved, the respondent served a grievance notice followed by the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
3. The appellant Railways resisted the petition on the ground that on 2-1-1982, the respondent was appointed as temporary Muawan and was discharged from duty from 15-1-1983 because of absence from duty and was reappointed on 20-1-1983 and was subsequently promoted as S.S.Fitter with effect from 26-10-1983 and thereafter he was reverted to his original substantive post with effect from 10-1-1984. The appellant, Railways further claimed that the respondent was referred to the Medical Officer to ascertain his age and since he was certified to be of 28 years of age he was discharged from 29-4-1984 and that as he was removed from the employment on account of his being overage therefore, there was no necessity of issuing any charge-sheet etc.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence. The respondent was cross- examined by the appellant but as their witness did not put his attendance, therefore, the side of the appellants establishment was closed. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the respondent while, nemo was present on behalf of appellants Railways. I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well-reasoned and there is nothing wrong in it to be interfered with. It is an admitted position on record that the respondent was permanent worker and there is nothing on record that he was ever removed from the employment or any discharge letter was issued to him. It is crystal clear from the record that the respondent was never discharged from duty but, actually, he was refused the duty with effect from 29-4-1984. It is a settled principle of law B that termination or discharge without any written order and without assigning any reason is illegal and is liable to be set aside. In view of these facts, I would also set c aside the termination from service of the respondent and would maintain the impugned order. ##TE#
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits deposited in this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent on due verification.