DECISION These appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated 9th of January, 1992, reinstating the petitioners in service with full back benefits. Being of identical nature, on facts and law, I will dispose of them by a common decision. These arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner Ahmed Ali Halo was appointed on 20-11-1989 as an Assistant and the other two in the same capacity on 14-5-1990. After completion of the probationary period they were confirmed.
However, their services came to be terminated on 26-2-1991. They had served grievance notices which were replied to. As the petitioners were not accorded any satisfaction, they preferred petitions before the Labour Court.
3. In the written statements it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioners was under the direction of the then Government and in violation of the rules and regulations. It was also mentioned that their performance left much to desire and therefore it was not in the interest of the Corporation to retain them any longer. The other allegations came to be denied.
4. The petitioners were their own witnesses and Syed Hasan, the Secretary of the Corporation appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Labour Court found that the orders of termination were illegal and therefore, directed their reinstatement with full back benefits.
6. The respondents in their affidavits admitted that they had never been given any memo. Of explanation or any show cause notice in respect of their quality of work and conduct during the entire tenure of their job. They also denied that they were appointed because of any political influence. It is not necessary to, dilate on the same, as the termination of the services had some thing different to say. The witness on behalf of the respondents maintained that as per terms of the appointment their services could be terminated any time by giving one month's notice, and in his cross-examination maintained that there was no protest note sent to the Commerce Minister to suggest that the respondents were not qualified for the post. He also conceded that there was never any show-cause issued to the respondents.
7. The Corporation brought into existence under the provisions of the Companies Ordinance has its own service rules. The condition of appointment are to be found in its Rules. Rule 8 reads as under:- - "Conditions of appointment.-- (1)All vacancies reserved for direct recruitment shall normally be advertised in the press and same procedure as laid down for initial appointment be followed; Except in any special case of exigency warranting immediate recruitment without the formality of advertisement, in which case subject to fulfilment of conditions of qualifications and experience by the candidates, recruitment to vacant posts may be made with the approval of the competent authority.
(2)
8. The perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that the advertisement in the press is not sine qua non for appointment in the Corporation: A candidate could be appointed with the approval of the competent authority and no attempt was made to show that the appointments in question had been made by a person who was not competent to do so.
9. Mr. Muhammad Atiq Qureshi, appearing on behalf of the appellants has referred to the case of Hussain Ali Chandio v. Secretary, Ministry of Communication and others 1992 SCMR page 32. That was a case under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance (XIII of 1978). The removal therein was in the public interest. The relevant provision of the Ordinance was section 3, which reads as under:-- (3)Certain persons to be liable to removal or reversion.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in the terms and conditions of service a person in corporation service appointed or promoted during the period from the first day of January, 1972 to the fifth day of July, 1977, may be removed from service, or reverted to his lower post or grade, as the case may be, without notice by the President, or a person authorised by him in this behalf on such date as the President, or as the case may be, the person so authorised may, in the public interest, direct."
The citation, therefore, has no bearing on the facts of this case. There can also be no gain saying the fact that the grievances of all employees of the appellant Corporation can be adjudicated under the Labour Laws. That was accepted by the witness of the appellants and the matter has to be examined from that angle. That being so the clause in the appointment letter could not override the provisions of Standing Orders 12(3) which insists that explicit reasons be given for the termination of the services of an employee "and pay all the dues including payment of unavailed leave before the expiry of the second working day before the services are terminated." That was not done. The termination orders are, therefore, not in accordance with the law.
10. I will, therefore, affirm the impugned orders and dismiss the appeals.