DECISION The impugned Award was passed by the learned Labour Court No. V, Karachi, on the 24th of November 1973 in an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance').
2. The leamed Court allowed the application for re- instatement with full back benefits mainly on the ground of non-observation of section 19 of the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. It would be useful to reproduce the finding of the learned Court on that point. It runs as under :-- "The respondent's firm is regLtered under Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. Section 19 of the Shops and Establishments Ordinance provides that the services of a permanent employee cannot be terminated without notice of one month in writing, and in cas of termination by way of punishment, an opportunity of explaining the charges levelled against him must be given." Section 19 of the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, reads as under:-- "19. Termination of employment.--(1) For terminating employment of a permanent employee, one month's notice iu writing shall be given either by the employer or by the employee and in lieu of notice, one month's wages calculated on the basis of average of wages earned during the preceding three months shall be paid. (2) No temporary employee, whether monthly-rated, weekly-rated or daily-rated, and no apprentice shall be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu thereof if his services are terminated, but the services of a temporary employee shall not be terminated as a punishment unless he has been given an opportunity of explaining the charges levelled against him." What appears from the above provision of law is that in the case of a permanent employee while terminating his services one month's notice in writing! is mandatory but there is no provision that an employer cannot orally termi-1A nate the services of an employee, The only condition, it appears to me, isl that he must pay, in that case, a month's wages. The appellant was willing to1 pay one month's wages, as would appear from Annexure 'A' to the Reply] Statement which is at page 29 of the Record of the Lower Court.
3. Mr. Mohsin Tayabali, the learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the application does not disclose any guaranteed right.
The decision of the Government of Sind cannot be said to be Law, Settlement or Award within the meaning of section 25-A. In this connection a reference may be made to subsection (1) of section 25-A. It reads as under "25-A. Redress of individual grievances.--(1) A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union, within three months of the day on ( which cause of such grievance arises." In this connection a reference may be made only to paras. 8 and 10 of the application. They read as under "(8) That the arbitrary decision of termination of my service is contrary to the decision of the Government of Sind Notification No. XI-9/204, dated 7-1-1972 (10)
That the respondent did not pay the legal dues to the applicant as provided in law." It would appear from Annexure 'A', already mentioned on page 29 of the record of the Labour Court that the respondent was willing to pay the dues by his letter dated the 17th of May 1972. The respondent did not go to collect that pay of one month which was the only legal dues under section 19 of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1969. The appellant cannot be blamed for that. I am of the view that the application does not disclose any guaranteed right under any law, settlement or award which may have been violated.
4. In these circumstances I would set aside the Award of the learned Labour Court and order the appellant to pay one month's wages to the respondent.