1. AWARD Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund (Chairman).--ln this application, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant had sought the re-instatement in service and payment of his legal dues. Subsequently, however, the claim of re-instatement was not pressed, as appears from the written arguments and the oral statement of the leamed counsel for the applicant. The case of the applicant is that he was employed as salesman with the respondent- Concern since 25th June, 1964. His initial pay was Rs. 215 per month, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 305 per month. On 5th July 1971, when he reported for duty, he was orally informed that he should not attend the duty for some days. He was, however, shocked to read a Notice of the respondents in the newspapers, dated 8th July 1971, to the effect that the applicant had resigned voluntarily and that none should deal with him on behalf of the respondents. The applicant, therefore, sent a Notice to the respondents on 9th July 1971, protesting against the false statement contained in the Notice published in the newspapers. Thereupon, the respondents replied to him by their letter dated 20th July 1971, terminating his services with effect from 16th July 1971. It is admitted that the applicant was paid one month's notice pay and the dues for earned leave of 30 days, in addition to his earned wages for 5 days from lst July, 1971. The applicant, however, has claimed in his application the payment of Gratuity and earned wages from 6th July 1971 to 16th July 1971, when according to him, his services were terminated. The respondents plead that theapplication is not maintainable, because the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, are not applicable to them. According to them, the applicant was working in the Head Office, where less than 20 workmen were employed and which was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. The respondents maintain that the applicant had voluntarily resigned. However, since he retracted from this position in his Notice dated 9th July 1971, bis services were terminated with effect from 5th July 1971. Consequently, according to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled either to gratuity or earned wages claimed by him. During the proceedings, the applicant examined himself. The respondents examined their Office Manager Abdul Aziz. Both the witnesses reiterated the averments made in their respective pleadings. Now, the Gratuity is payable under the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondents have contended that this Ordinance is not applicable to their Establishment, since they employ less than 20 workmen.
2. However, even assuming that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, is applicable to the respondent-Establishment, still the claim for Gratuity would not be maintainable because the applicant has not adopted the procedure laid down in the Standing Order 18 (b). The applicant admits that he had not sent any grievance notice to the respondents after the order of termination was communicated to him. It has been held in the recent decision of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR.-1/72 that wherever an individual workman has a grievance in respect of any matter under Standing Orders Ordinance, he must follow the remedy prescribed under Standing Order 18 and not under section 34 of the Ordinance, as it now stands. Therefore, since the applicant has not complied with the procedure laid down in Standing Order 18 (b), his prayer for payment of Gratuity cannot be granted. The applicant, however, is entitled to the payment of earned wages from 6th July, 1971 to 16th July 1971. The respondents contend that the services of the applicant were terminated on 5th July, 1971. But, in their own letter dated 20th July 1971, Exh. A-4, they have informed the applicant through his Advocate that his services were terminated vide their letter dated 16th July 1971 which has also been produced through the respondents' witness as Exh.
3. A-5. In that letter it is stated that the services of the applicant had been terminated with effect from 5th July 1971, but no order of termination has been produced by the respondents.
4. Consequently the termination would take effect from the date of the letter Exh. A-5. Therefore, the application is allowed to the extent that the applicant is entitled to recover the earned wages for the period from6 th July 1971 to 16th July, 1971.