DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen, shortly stated are as follows:-
1. The appellant was admittedly appointed on temporary basis. He joined on 5-2-1989 and states to have been promoted, receiving the daily wages at Rs,40 as against Rs30 earlier. Unfortunately he met with an accident and was under treatment under the Social Security Scheme. He reported for duty on 12-11-1989 and on the 13th it is said that his services were terminated and a letter to that effect was despatched under Postal Certificate.
2. The version put forward by the appellant is that he had not been intimated in writing and used to keep on visiting the factory daily, and was being stopped at the gate upto 5-12-1989. He had reported to the Labour Department but the respondent never bothered to join the dialogue as intimated by the Department. He had therefore sent a grievance notice to the respondent but again no reply was received. He had therefore filed a grievance application before the Labour Court. The allegation came to be denied in the Written Reply filed on behalf of the respondents.
3. Apart from the appellant, there was another witness on his behalf by the name of Akhtar Muneer.
One M.I. Baig appeared on behalf of the respondent. The learned Presiding Officer found the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant unsustainable and dismissed the application.
4. It is to be seen that though the appellant at the earlier stages had denied that he had signed the letter of appointment showing that he had been appointed on temporary basis, but the Presiding Officer had taken care to compare the signature on the letter of appointment produced on behalf of the respondent with his signature on the grievance application. His finding is that the two signatures tallied and that the letter of appointment was duly signed by him. I have no reason to differ from the same. I also agree with the finding that the letter sent by the respondent under Postal Certificate was duly received.
5. The short question involved for consideration would be as to whether the termination of the appellant's services though the period of his service was a few days more than 9 months would justify the termination of his services. The fact also remains, that since he had met with the accident in September, he was on leave and under section 72 of the Social Security Ordinance, his services could not be terminated while he was under treatment. It is not necessary to dilate on this aspect of the contention any further as his matter is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court and others PLD 1980 Supreme Court page 323. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.