DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 2-104990 passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No, 1 Karachi whereby grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rauf A. Kasuri and Mr. M. Akhtar Saeed, Advocates for the respondent.
3. The admitted facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was appointed as Telephone Technician/Operator on 27-1-1987 by the respondent and after completing probationary period his services were confirmed. On 28-8-1988 his services were terminated on the ground that post of Telephone Technician/Operator against which he was recruited had been abolished. Aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondent. Failing to get any redress; he filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court, which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that appellant's services were terminated because of the abolition of post.
4. In the cross-examination appellant himself has admitted that he was the only Telephone Technician in the respondent's establishment, that post of Telephone Technician had been abolished and that no person has been employed as Telephone Technician by the respondent after termination of his services.
5. In the cross-examination of the respondent's witness Major retired Munir Ahmad, Manager General Services & Civil Works it has come that post of the appellant was abolished because the PIDC was sustaining losses and it was done for economy drive. He admitted the recruitment of about 19 persons as per list Exh.RW/1. Most of these persons are in the category of chowkidar, sweeper etc. Which were not comparable to the post held by the appellant. One Telephone Operator appears to have been recruited on 22-12-1989. The services of the appellant were admittedly terminated from 28-8-1988. This recruitment as Telephone Operator on 22-12-1989 would be beyond the period c of one year and therefore would not attract provisions of Standing Order 14.
6. In the grievance notice no mala fides is alleged against the respondent and there is no proof of mala fides produced by the appellant. It is settled law, that mala fides is to be specifically pleaded and is to be strictly proved, as there can be no presumption of mala fides on basis of conjecture.
There is nothing on the record to show that any person junior to the appellant was retained in service by respondent as Telephone Technician or Telephone Operator at the time when the appellant was removed from service. On his own admission the post against which he was working had been abolished and nobody had been recruited on that post. It appears to be case of termination simpliciter.
7. The order of termination complies with the requirement of Standing Order 12(3). It specifically shows in writing the reasons of termination of services of appellant and also gives him pay of 30 days in lieu of notice.
8. I find no merit in this appeal which is therefore dismissed.