The petitioner was a weaver in the organisation of the first respondent. His services were terminated on 15-9-1973 on the ground of absence from, duty. It is an admitted feature that no charge-sheet or show-cause notice vas given to him before termination of services. It is also a fact admitted .y both the parties that less than 49 persons were employed in the first respondent's organisation. However, I will deal with this question in detail later on.
2. The first respondent gave a grievance notice to the petitioner on 6 October 1973 which was signed by his Advocate. Its reply was given by he petitioner on 18th October 1973, stating that the notice was not valid because it was signed by an Advocate and not not by the first respondent himself. Subsequently on 14th November 1973 an application was filed before the Junior Labour Court which was allowed on 7th December 1973. The Junior Labour Court ordered his re- instatement in service with full back benefits, Feeling aggrieved by thi3 order the first respondent filed an appeal before the Labour Court who reversed the order of the Junior Labour Court by its decis--ion dated .6-5-1974. It is against this order of the Labour Court that this petition has been filed.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although by virtue of section 1 subsection 3 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of 1968"), the provisions of clause 6 and 8 of handing Order 12 and Standing Order 15 did not apply to the petitioner's case because the first respondent's organisation did not employ more than 19 persons but he was tried to build up his argument on the premises that since Standing Order 12 (5) was applicable to the case thereforeth the inquiry within the meaning of Standing Order 15 was necessary. Standing order .2 (5) reads as under: "The services of a permanent workman shall not be terminated on the ground of misconduct otherwise than in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 15."
4. A perusal of section 1 read with Standing Order 12 shows that except the provisions of clauses 6 and 8 of Standing Order 12, the rest of the provisions of this Standing Order will be applicable to the c; c of a permanent employee. However, since section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance has specifically excluded the operation of Standing Order 15 in the cases of such organisations where 49 or less persons are employed on any during the proceeding 12 months the provisions of Standing Order Ordinance would not apply. It is therefore, apparent teat the Petitioner---s case was not covered 5y Standing Order 15 and no inquiry was necessary. However, since the provisions of Standing Order 12 except the provision contained in clause' 6 and 8 are applicable, therefore under clause 1 of the Order 12 the petitioner was entitled to one month's notice. Admittedly :once was not given by the petitioner, therefore he was entitled to one Month---s salary in lieu of notice.
5. Subject to the observations made above, the p-6tlon is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.