DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, IIIrd Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 27-3-1990, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr.Muhammad Humayoon, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Raja Shamsuz-Zaman, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The facts of the case are more or less admitted. Admittedly the respondent was appointed by the appellants on 2-7-1988 and his services were terminated on 13-10-1988. Aggrieved by this order the respondent served grievance notice upon the appellants and then filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. Mr. Muhammad Humayoon contends that as the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were terminated vide letter, dated 13-10-1988 in terms of his letter of appointment. He has further contended that expression in termination letter that work of the respondent was not found upto required standard" did not attach any stigma to the respondent and, therefore, it was the case of termination simpliciter and no enquiry as envisaged under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was necessary. In support he has relied upon an un-reported decision of this Tribunal in the case of General Tyres & Rubber Company of Pakistan v. Waheed Gul, Appeal No,KAR-30 of 1990, decided on 20-8-1990.
5. Before I consider the contentions of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, it will be pertinent to examine the definition of 'permanent workman' in Standing Order 1 of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, hereinafter called the Ordinance. It defines permanent workman as a workman who has been engaged on a work of permanent nature likely to last for more than 9 months and has satisfactorily completed probationary period of 3 months. It is not disputed that the post against which the respondent was appointed as of a permanent nature and that at the time of the order of termination was issued he had completed three months service. Only question that requires consideration is that whether he had completed the probationary period satisfactorily. Under the Law the employer has three months to assess work of the workman and decide whether it has been satisfactorily performed or not. There is no provision under the Law by which this period of probation could be extend: d. The fact that workman is allowed to continue work after completion of three months would raise presumption that employer has found his work satisfactory.
6. The case of the General Tyre & Rubber Company relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Humayoon is distinguishable from the instant case. In that case the order of termination showing that the service of the workman were not satisfactory was passed by the employer within the period of probation, but, because of the illness or deliberate absence of the workman, it could not be served upon the workman till after the period of probation had expired. In that case this Tribunal has held, that the opinion was formed by the employer within the period of probation and passed the order of termination within that period. The mere fact that it could not be served upon the workman within the period of probation would not confer upon him the right of confirmation under the Standing Orders. In that case this Tribunal had also held that because the employer had been given the right to determine as to whether the work of workman was satisfactory or not during the period of probation, expression of such opinion in the termination order issued during the period of probation would under circumstances not attach any stigma to the workman so as to call for an enquiry under Standing Order 15(4). In the instant case the termination order in which the employer has expressed the opinion that his services were not found upto the required standard was issued after the expiry of the period of probation and after certain rights had been acquired by the respondent under the aforesaid Ordinance. In such it cannot be considered as the case of termination simpliciter but enquiry under Standing Order 15(4) is necessary as reason for termination of services constitute misconduct.
7. Mr. Muhammad Humayoon has also relied upon clause (4) of the letter of appointment of the respondent which has been produced as Exh. R/1. This clause (4) reads as under'- "(4) - After satisfactory completion of probationary period, and < if the management decides to have you continue, your appointment, may at the sole discretion of the management be confirmed. After confirmation, your services will be subject to termination by one month's notice on either side or pay in lieu thereof."
8. It may be pointed that the letter of termination which under Standing Order 12(3) requires to contain explicit reason for termination of service, clause (4) has not been referred to. Only clause
(2) of the letter of appointment was referred which reads as under:- "2 - You shall be initially on a probation of three months during which your services can be terminated at 24 hours notice without assigning any reason, without any notice or notice pay whatsoever."
9. Furthermore it is admitted by Mr. Moazzam All Khan, Corporate Manager of the appellants that the letter of appointment neither bore the signature of the respondent nor it was served upon the respondent. As such, the respondent cannot be governed by the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment of which he was unaware. Even otherwise, I have held that the termination of service of workman after expiry of the period of probation on the ground that his services not found satisfactory during the period of probation, would not be tenable without any enquiry under Standing Order 15(4). In view of the above discussions, I found no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.