DECISION This is an appeal against the order, dated 7-11-1988, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV, Karachi, whereby he ordered the reinstatement of the respondent within seven days with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ibne-Ayub, representative for the respondent and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was employee of the appellants since 18-6-1983. Admittedly prior to the termination under dispute the respondent was removed from service twice but was reinstated under orders of the Labour Court. Last time he was reinstated on 25-1-1987. Admittedly his services were terminated on 3-12-1987. According to the appellants the services of the respondent were terminated because they had given away their Weaving Department/Section on contract and therefore respondent had become surplus. It is further alleged by the appellants that the order of termination is in writing showing reason of termination which order they had tried to serve upon the respondent who refused to accept the same and therefore such endorsement on the termination order was made in presence of two witnesses namely Mohammad Saleem and Mohammad Ashraf. However the respondent denies to have received any order of termination of service in writing. The respondent approached the Labour Department but failing to get redress he after serving grievance notice upon the appellant filed grievance petition before the Labour Court.
4. The main point at issue appears to be whether the services of the respondent were terminated by any order in writing as required under Standing Order 12(3), which reads as under:-- "(3) The service of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reasons for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said Section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance."
5. It is settled law that this order in writing has to be served upon and supplied to the workman as otherwise he will not be able to seek redress of grievance as allowed to him under section 25-A.
6. There is only oral word of the appellants that they tried to deliver the termination order in writing to the respondent who refused to accept, against oral word of the respondent that no such order in writing was delivered to him or attempted to have been delivered to him. Admittedly this alleged order in writing was not sent through Registered Post to the respondent after his alleged refusal to accept the same. According to Mr. Nisar Bajwa, Personnel Manager of the appellants, they did not send the order through Registered Post because on earlier occasions the respondent had refused to accept the notices sent by Registered Post. However there is no evidence in support of this allegation. Mr. Nisar Bajwa admitted that he did not produce this order in writing before the Labour Department where he was called on the application of the respondent and that the Labour Officer directed the respondent to resume his duties. The appellants are alleged to have attempted to serve this letter in writing upon the respondent in presence of two witnesses namely Mohammad Saleem and Mohammad Ashraf. Both have been examined before the learned Labour Court. Both are admittedly employees of the appellants. Mohammad Saleem claims to be General Secretary of the C.B.A. Union but he has denied the suggestion that their union is 'pocket union' of the employer. Mohammad Ashraf has admitted in cross-examination that Mohammad Saleem was not present when respondent had refused to accept the termination order. He also admitted that he put his signatures on the endorsement on the termination order in absence of the respondents.
Under these circumstances the evidence of these interested witnesses who were employees of the appellants cannot be said to prove that the appellants had tried to deliver termination order to the respondent. Their conduct in not sending the termination letter through Registered Post and not producing the same before the Labour Department also supports the contention of the respondent that no order in writing with regard to his termination was passed. The relations between the parties do not appear to be cordial as the respondent had been removed from service two times before the termination of service in dispute. Under the circumstances the appellants should have been more careful to serve the termination order on the respondent in a manner which would inspire confidence. Furthermore though the Weaving Section is said to have been given on contract on 1-10-1987, which fact is also denied by the respondent, the services of the respondent were not terminated till 3-12-1987. Their appears to be no explanation on record as to why the respondent was kept without work for more than two months.
7. All these circumstances and facts discussed above support the opinion of the learned Labour Court that no order in writing as required under Standing Order 12(3) was passed by the appellants when respondent was removed from service. I am inclined to agree with the opinion of the learned Trial Court and see no merits in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.