DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 27-5-1989, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi,. Whereby grievance petition filed by the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be given back benefits upto the date of decision of grievance petition.
2. I have heard Mr. Sarmad Usmani, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Gohar Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was appointed as 'Driver' by the appellants on 1-4-1981. He was confirmed on 10-2-1982 and his services were terminated vide order, dated 2-8-1988. Aggrieved by this order the respondent served grievance notice upon the appellants and thereafter filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. Learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of the appellant mainly on the ground that the reasons shown in the termination order were not explicit as required under Standing Order 12(3).
5. To understand the arguments of both the parties and the main point involved in this appeal it is necessary to reproduce termination order which is Annexure 'C' to the grievance petition and also Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to the 'Ordinance'):-- "Mr. Hassan Gul, L.T.V. Driver, Shaukat & Raza (Pvt.) Ltd., Wad Office, Karachi.
' Subject:--TERMINATION OF SERVICE. Dear Sir, ' We regret to inform you that as the Company is no longer in need of your services, as such your employment stands terminated with immediate effect.
' One month's pay will be paid to you in lieu of notice.
' Please obtain your clearance certificate from Transport Manager and report to Manager (Adorn.) for final settlement of your dues, if any. Yours faithfully, for SHAUKAT & RAZA (PVT.) LIMITED.
(Sd.)
(S. Nooruddin) MANAGER (ADMN.) H.O."
"S.O. 12(3). The services 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 reason 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 to the redress o an individual grievance."
6. During the course of evidence it has come on the record through Mr Nooruddin that the appellant had closed Project of Rahim Yar Khan an consequently the services of number of employees, including respondent, at the Head Office had to be terminated. It has further come on record that one Drive Muhammad Saleem, who was junior to the respondent, was retained in service and his services were terminated on 20-9-1988 because the respondent refused to drive the Van which was driven by Muhammad Saleem whose services were also terminated after the disposal of the Van.
7. The main rather the only point that requires consideration is whether th reasons shown in the termination order are explicit as required under Standing Order 12(3). The reason shown in the termination order was that the company was no longer in need of the services of the respondent. It does not show as to why the company was no longer in need of the services of the respondent nor that his services were terminated because of retrenchment or reorganisation due to closure of work as later on it has come in the evidence. The question as to what is meant by explicit reason under Standing Order 12((3) has been subject-matter of several decisions of this Tribunal and the Superior Courts.
8. Mr, Sarmad Usmani has relied upon decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ghulam Ahmed v.
Island Textile Mills Ltd. Kotri 1985 PLC 275, wherein this Tribunal held that 'services no longer required' mentioned in termination order was enough reason and where the termination of service was due to retrenchment or reorganisation it was not necessary that elaborate and lenghty reasons be mentioned in the termination order. This order of this Tribunal was challenged in the writ petition before the Sindh High Court at Karachi. A learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi in its decision reported as Ghulam Ahmed v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1990 PLC 385 set aside the order of Tribunal holding it to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The learned Division I3ench observed that vague statement in the termination order would not amount to compliance of Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance as the aforesaid Ordinance was beneficial legislation intended to protect the interest of workman and also to create harmony in the industry and that wisdom behind such provision seemed to be that the workman, whose services were terminated,. Must be made aware of the facts leading to termination or else it would not be possible for him to challenge it in a proper manner. It was further held that where termination of service of workman was on the ground of reorganisation but such ground was not communicated to workman, this ground would be of no avail to the employer. It was also held that statement in termination order that service of workman was no longer required could not be a reason for terminating the services where such statement calls for further inquiry and that in itself was no ground or reason for termination.
9. Mr. Sarmad Usmani also relied upon the case of Yasmeen Kausar v. Midway House Ltd. 1985 PLC 735 and Soofi Muhammad Aslam v. M/s. Iftikhar and Company Ltd. 1985 PLC 989. In both these cases question as to what are explicit reasons was not considered but it was held that termination of service on the ground of retrenchment was permissible if it was bona fide and retrechment rules under Standing Orders were duly observed.
10.Mr. Sarmad Usmani has also relied upon the case of Government Transport Service v. Sarfraz 1986 PLC 622, wherein learned Labour. Appellate Tribunal Punjab held the services no longer required was not a valid reason and that such termination order was not legal and not sustainable.
Mr. Usmani has also relied upon two decisions of this Tribunal reported as Muhammad Habib v.
Messrs Jabeez Limited, Karachi 1989 P L t 579 and Ibrahim and another v. Messrs Marble Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 PLC 924. In both the cases the reason for termination of service was mentioned in the letters of termination and therefore this Tribunal held that where no malice was alleged or proved such termination orders were not exceptionable. Obviously these two cases are distinguishable from the instant case.
11. Mr. Gohar Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied upon the case of Allah Ditta v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1985 Lah. 407, wherein it has been held the order of termination should explicitly state reason for action taken and communicate to the workman effectively. It was further held that legal provisions are to be interpreted in a reasonable manner to give effect to their purpose.
12. It may be pointed out that Standing Order 12(3) is of penal nature as under it services of workman are terminated. As such the provisions of this Standing Order have to be strictly construed. Word 'explicit' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, as under:- "Not obscure or ambiguous, having no disguised meaning or reservation. Clear in understanding."
Under this provision the right is conferred upon the workman whose services have been terminated to seek redress through the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. Unless the real reasons for termination of services are made clear in the termination order the workman would not be in. a position to effectively seek remedy under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969.
13. The order of termination of service which merely shows that services of the workman were no longer required without disclosing as to why they were no more required cannot be considered an order in confirmity with provision and spirit of Standing Order 12(3) and such termination order is not sustainable.
14. Mr. Sarmad Usmani has further contended that in the evidence it has clearly come on record that services of the respondent were terminated because of reorganisation and also why a junior person was retained for about two months. He further submits that in such a case respondent, at the most, be entitled to back benefits upto the date the junior was retrenched. He relied upon case of Syed Wazarat Hussain Zaidi v. National Construction -Company 1987 SCMR 584. However, the facts of that case are distinguishable as the question as to whether explicit reasons were shown in the termination order was not an issue in that case. As held by learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court in the aforementioned case of Ghulam Ahmed as this ground of reorganisation was not shown as reason in the termination order and this ground was not communicated to the workman, this ground would be of no avail to the employer.
15. In view of the above discussions I see no merits in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
The amount of back benefits deposited in this Tribunal be released to the respondent after due verification.