DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad, dated 15-10-1990, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a workman viz. Guard/Peon with the respondents bank firstly from 15-2-1988 to 14-7-1988 and then from 13-10-1988 to 10-1-1989.
His services were terminated on 10-1-1989. Aggrieved by this termination order, he served his grievance notice andthen filed grievance petition.
4. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the appellant claims that as the appellant had worked for more than 183 days in one consecutive year, he will be deemed to be a permanent workman as defined in Standing Order 1(b) of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called Ordinance). I am afraid I cannot agree with his as there is no evidence that he was working against the post of permanent nature. No doubt, the appellant has stated in evidence that he was working against the post of permanent nature.
However, when such question was put to the witness of the respondents, the witness of the respondents had denied that the appellant was a permanent workman. There is no other authentic evidence to show that the appellant was working against a permanent post.
5. The order of termination, issued by the respondents is not in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) which requires that the services of a workman shall not be terminated nor a workman be removed from service except by order, in writing, which shall state explicit reasons for the action taken. The order of termination in the instant case only shows that the services of the appellants are terminated from 10-14989 without showing reasons for termination of the "services.
Mt. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the respondents contends that in case of a temporary worker, notice, in writing, is not necessary. I agree with him that in case of a temporary workman, neither one month's notice is necessary nor the pay in lieu thereof is necessary. But, the provision of Standing Order 12(3) would be applicable even to a temporary workman. The word used in Standing Order 12(3) is workman which as defined in Standing Order 1, would include, all the 5 categories of workmen including temporary workmen. It was therefore, mandatory for the respondents to have given explicit reasons for termination of the services of the appellant which they had not given. As such, the termination order is illegal and is not tenable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court as well as the order of the respondents Bank terminating the services of the appellant and order the reinstatement of the appellant in service within one month with 50% (fifty per cent) back benefits as he has not rendered any services to the respondents during this period nor there is any evidence to show that during this period he was gainfully employed or not so employed.