DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. VIII, at Larkana, whereby the petition for reinstatement in service came to be allowed with full back benefits. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Carpenter Cooly by the respondent No. 2 in an existing vacancy by an undated letter of March, 1991 and after the requisite medical check-up had joined the service. However, his services came to be terminated forthwith by letter dated 27-5-1991.
3. He had sent a grievance notice dated 2-6-1991 and as there was no word of comfort for him, he had filed the petition before the Labour Court culminating in this appeal.
4. The written reply was filed only on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was alleged therein that he was engaged as a substitute Carpenter against an existing vacancy on 4-4-1991 and the appointment was on temporal basis. It was further alleged that otherwise too, the, appointment was invalid there was a ban on fresh employment imposed by the Federal Cabinet and the General Manager Lahore. The other allegations came to be denied.
5. The petitioner was his own witness and Iqbal Ahmad Khan Durrani, the Head Clerk of the relevant off-ice from Sukkur appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, found that the employment of the petitioner was on permanent basis as against an existing vacancy due to the retirement of an employee of the Department and the termination order was illegal.
7. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants did not appear personally and had sent leis arguments in writing, which was only a repetition of the grounds of appeal. I had heard Mr Khawaja Samiul Hassan, learned Advocate for the respondent.
8. The contention of the respondent that he was appointed against an existing vacancy finds support even from the testimony of Iqbal Ahmad Khan. The latter has spoken in unequivocal terms that there was no record available with the Department to show that the appointment was temporary. He also had conceded that there was no prescribed qualifications for the job the respondent was holding. There is a mention of the ban imposed by the Government, but the witness also admits that there are some other people whose services had been retained, but according to him, they were connected with the safety of the trains and railway lines.
9. Be that as it may. There is nothing to show that the respondent did not fall in that category or there was a ban on filling up all jobs. Even if there was any breach of instructions at all, some action should have been taken against the authorities responsible for the breach thereof.
10. Under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the services could not be terminated without giving specific reason therefore. There is a plethora of case law to that effect The termination order on the other hand is totally reticent about it. The order is, therefore, invalid in the eye of law and cannot be sustained.
11. As a result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.