DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 6-8-1990 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Court No,IV at Karachi whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. 1 have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed for the appellant and Mr. Rafat UNmani for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Briefly the facts of case are that the appellant was admittedly employed as M.T. Driver by the respondents. By an order dated 12th June, 1989 his services were terminated by the respondents on the ground that Airport Security pass issued to him by the Chief Security Officer ASF Karachi, by which he was allowed to perform his duties for which he was employed had been cancelled by the ASF Authorities rendering him ineligible for continuing employment within the organisation. He was asked to collect his dues including one month's pay in lieu of notice. His services stood terminated on the day the order was passed. Being aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondent and then filed the grievance petition, which was resisted by the respondent.
4. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was implicated in a charas smuggling case in the F.I.R. Dated 29-3-1989 and was arrested by the Customs Police on 28-3-1989. He was released on bail on 10-4-1989. The F.I.R. Has been produced as Eh A/5. Annexure 'X' produced by the respondent shows that Assistant Collector Customs requested the Airport Security Air Force Authorities to cancel the Airport Security Pass of persons mentioned in the enclosed list for their alleged involvement in the smuggling case. The list does not appear to have been produced in the Court. Vide Annexure X-1 dated 6-6-1989 the Airport Authorities cancelled the Airport Security Pass of the appellant as well as two other employees of the respondent, and so intimated the respondent. Consequently the respondent issued terminationb order Annexurc X-2 on 12-6-1989.
5. The respondent's witness Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan has stated that appellant was employed as M.T.
Driver on Special heavy vehicle used for various requirements of Aircraft and passengers during the ground handling of the aircraft at their arrival and departure times inside the airport restricted area, for which he was issued Airport Entry Pass by the Airport Security Force and also Apron Driving permit by the Civil Aviation Authority. He just stated that as soon as the Airport Entry Pass was cancelled, appellant could not enter the Airport restricted area to perform his duties and, therefore, his services become redundant. The appellant has admitted that the employee required to perform duties on the apron/inside the Airport cannot do so without Airport Entry Pass.
6. Mr. Abdul Majeed has argued that the appellant has been removed from service without any show-cause notice which violates the principles of natural justice. Whereas Mr. Rafat Usmani contends that the appellant has been removed from service not for any act of misconduct but because his Security Entry Pass was cancelled and therefore his services had become redundant.
He contends that it was an order of termination simpliciter in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12 by an order in writing showing explicit reasons.
7. It is contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed that under the appointment order Exh.A/1 the appellant could be re-allocated to any section or any department of the organisation. However there is no evidence to show that there is any section or department of the repondent where a heavy vehicle driver is required to perform his duties without Security Entry Pass. The designation of the respondent shows that they had to perform function in connection with the Airport.
8. Mr. Rafat Usmani has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in 17 appeals bearing No,KAR-285 of 1987 to KAR-301 of 1987, decided by single order on 31-3-1988. In this case services of 17 employees of the respondent were terminated on the ground that their security passes had been withdrawn by ASF Authorities. This Tribunal held the termination orders of workman by the respondent to be legal and dismissed the appeals.
9. Mr. Abdul Majeed has invoked the principles of natural justice and contended that the appellant should have been given opportunity to be heard before termination order could be passed. In this connection he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak case reported in PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 45 their Lordships held that: "Maxim--Audi alteram partem--"No man shall be condemned unheard" applies to judicial as well as administrative bodies."
' This principle was also reiterated in the case reported as 1987 SCM R 1189.
10. However in the instant case the appellant has claimed redress under section 25-A, which entitles him to take any grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for time being in force to the Labour Court. The rights of the workmen are guaranteed under IRO 1969 and under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Standing Order 15(4) specifically provides for issuance of notice in cases where a workman is removed for an alleged act of misconduct. However Standing Order 12 does not provide for such notice where the removal is not for any misconduct, but provides that such workman should be given one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof and his termination order should be in writing showing explicit reasons for his termination. Mr. Rafat Usmani has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of High Court of Sindh at Karachi in the case of Pakistan Cable Employees Union Labour Welfare Centre and another v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi 1981 PLC 589. In that case male outdoor duty clerk recruited with specific condition that he would use a Motor-Cycle performing such duty. After considerable time, he suddenly stated that he would not do so because he had no driving licence, Management directed him to obtain driving licence but he did not comply with such direction. His services were terminated with one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Labour Apellate Tribunal held the action to be justified and the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was upheld by their Lordships.
11. The allegation that the respondent got the Airport Security Pass of the appellant cancelled is not substantiated, from the record. As pointed above, the record shows that Airport Security Pass had been cancelled by the Airport Security Authorities at the request of Customs Authorities, because of involvement of the appellant in the smuggling case.
12. Under these circumstances the respondents were justified in terminating service of the appellant on the ground that after cancellation of Airport Entry Pass by the A.S.F. He was not useful to them. This action of respondents has rightly been upheld by the learned Presiding Officer at it is in accordance with Standing Order 12(3). I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.