This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 8-1-1990 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur whereby the application of the appellant brought under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his reinstatement has been dismissed.
2. The grounds given by the learned lower court are that the service of the appellant was contractual and that according to the terms and conditions of service, he was not entitled to be given any show-cause notice or charge-sheet. The grounds on which the services of the appellant were terminated are given in Exh. P-3 which are to the effect that his performance as Correspondent/Stringer was not satisfactory and he had missed to report many important news and that certain important news provided by him were found to be false. In view of the nature of allegations for which the services of the appellant were terminated, it was necessary to give opportunity to the appellant to rebut the allegations. The learned lower Court has also wrongly held that the services of the appellant were contractual. In contractual service always, the period for which one has been employed is given. In the order of appointment copy of which is Exh. R-1, no period is given. Although a service agreement is a contract but the service cannot become contractual in the sense that it can be terminated. If period of contract is given of course, on the completion of that period, the person stands removed from service, if he has not been retained. So the service of the appellant was not contractual. It is apparent from the appointment letter Exh. R-1 and the documentary evidence such as Exhs. R-5 and R-6 that the nature of employment was work-charged. In Exh. R-1 two kinds of fixed allowances are given such as retainer allowance and stationery allowance. But the remunerations for working are not fixed and were at the rate of Re.
0.87 per single column c.m. for all published news, and Rs,3 each for all published photographs. It is thus clear that the wages varied according to the space covered by the news and photographs supplied by the appellant. In other words, the wages were according to the volume of work and were not fixed. Since there were no fixed wages per day, per week or per month in the absence of evidence the inference would be that the appellant was not entitled to any wages for the days on which he did not supply any news. He was thus not a regular and permanent employee but was a work-charged employee. Needless to say that a work-charged employee has no right and in these circumstances, there is no need to serve any notice to show cause or a notice of termination before terminating the service. However, the appellant was entitled to be given one month's notice as required by the contract of service Exh. R-1. It is provided in Exh. R-1 that contract of service could he terminated by either side after giving one month's notice without assigning any reason. RW-1 admitted that before passing termination order copy of which is Exh.R-21 no notice was given to the appellant. Since a necessary provision of contract of service was violated, the order of termination was bad and is not sustainable. Needless to say that the contract of service has the force of law and its violation B amounts to infringement of a right guaranteed by law.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, no doubt, the appellant deposed in his statement that from the date of removal from service, he was jobless and was not attached to any newspaper but in the cross- examination he had to admit that he was the Chief Editor of Nida-e-Waqt. Exh.R-20 is the publication of daily Nida-e-Waqt newspaper. M. Zafar Khan is shown as Chief Editor in the said Paper. This newspaper was produced in evidence by RW-1 but no objection was raised nor RW-1 was examined on this point. It is thus clear that the appellant wrongly stated that he was jobless from the date of termination from service or that he was not attached to any other newspaper. He thus is not entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision and the order of termination of service, the I D appellant is directed to he reinstated in service without hack benefits.