DECISION ' The circumstances forming the background of this appeal against the order of the reinstatement made by the Labour Court are as follows:
1. The respondent was appointed as a watchman on 1-10-1985 and his services came to be terminated on the 17th of April, 1988 on the ground that the post of the watchman at the residence of the Managing Director had been decided to be abolished. The respondent had made a representation, but finding no satisfaction had followed it up by a grievance notice which also was not replied to, with the result that grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court.
2. The allegation of the application came to be denied in the Written Reply. It was further alleged that the respondent was not a workman and it went on to say that the letter of termination had been given by hand but the respondent had declined to accept the same. It was therefore sent by registered post and had been duly received by him as would be borne out from the Acknowledgement Due Card.
3. The respondent had duly appeared as his own witness, while there were two witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant namely Abid Hussain Khan, the Personnel Officer and Arshad Hassan, Manager Administration.
4. The Labour Court found the issues in regard to the status of the respondent and whether the termination was mala fide in favour of the respondent, and ordered reinstatement.
5. The case set up by the respondent even before the termination of his service was that on the night of the 8th of April he did not report for his duty as his mother had fallen ill. The next day when he had gone to the residence of the Managing Director he had been rebuked by his son. He had protested about the same in writing. This had infuriated the appellant further and on the 17th of the April his services were terminated verbally.
6. Abid Hussain Khan admits in his cross examination that he knew about the quarrel between the respondent and the son of the Managing Director but he was not sure about the date. He had also produced an application which had been presented to him in that context by the respondent but denied the suggestion that the removal of the applicant was on that score.
7. On the showing of both these witnesses, produced on behalf of the appellant there are some posts of watchmen lying vacant still, and some other appointments of watchmen have taken place, though alleged to be on temporary basis. Even the names have been brought on the record.
There is also nothing to show that there was any resolution and that the post had been abolished.
That would be neither here nor there, as he had not been appointed as a watchman for night duties at the residence of the Managing Director. Anyway there is no denying the fact that the respondent had incurred the displeasure of the Managing Director because of his absence on the night of the 8th of April and the quarrel which had taken place the next day. The plea of the abolition of the post looks spacious all the more, lacking to the Worsoning condition of law and order at Karachi at the relevant time.
8. It is true that the services of a permanent workman can be dispensed with under the scheme of the Standing Order but it was a colourable exercise of powers as abundantly borne out from the record and there is no proof that even this letter of termination had been duly served on the respondent because the Acknowledgement Due Card which has been brought on the record bears the signature not of the respondent but of some other man of the name of Gul Malook. I might as well mention that there is some discrepancy in the address of the respondent as to be found in the letter of appointment and the Acknowledgement Due Card.
9. I might as well mention that the contention in regard to the watchman being not a workman was not pressed here before me and very properly, as there is a finality about the status of the watchman as a workman, as per judgment of the Supreme Court.
10. In the result I would uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal