DECISION ' In this appeal the only point agitated by the parties is whether the respondent gate-keeper's services could be terminated simpliciter under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was working as gate-keeper at the workshop of the appellants. On 15-2-1991 he was arrested by the police. His services were terminated simpliciter, by a Written Order, dated 5-3-1991, for the reason that since he was involved in some criminal case the post could not be kept vacant indefinitely. It was further stated that he could collect his dues from the Office. The respondent served the management with a grievance notice that he had eight years service in the appellant company and he should be reinstated. On getting no redress the respondent filed the matter in Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
3. The learned Fourth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi found that Engineering Company had not adopted the procedure laid down in Standing Order 15(4) while terminating the services of the gate-keeper-for misconduct. The Labour Court, therefore, allowed the grievance petition and directed reinstatement of the gate-keeper in service with full back benefits.
4. The learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. M. Latif Saghar, has argued that termination simpliciter under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance was permissible in this case as the termination was not for misconduct. He has cited 1991 PLC 508 in which Sindh High Court Bench held termination under Standing Order 12(3) simpliciter with orders in writing giving reasons would be valid and binding. He also cited some other rulings reported in 1993 PLC 73, 1992 PLC 263 and 1991 PLC 301. It was held in these cases that termination without holding a regular enquiry was valid for want of enquiry being just a technical requirement. Even if the worker was reinstated he could not claim the back benefits.
5. The learned Advocate for the workman, Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, has, on the other hand, argued that petitioner's arrest and confinement in jail resulting in his absence from work fur more than ten days could be regarded as misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance and as such his services could not be terminated without regular charge-sheet and notice.
6. However to be arrested by the police and, therefore, not being able to remain present for duty cannot be considered as absence without leave nor does it fall under any of the clauses of Standing Order 15(3) of acts and omissions detailed as misconduct. The termination of the employment for any reason other than misconduct was, therefore, permissible under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders only requirement being an order in writing and reasons for the action taken. The post of gate-keeper could not be kept vacant for any length of time and the appellant Engineering Company had, therefore, right to terminate the services of the petitioner and appoint another person in his place. No mala fides are alleged against appellant company for passing orders of termination simpliciter.
7. The termination being bona fide and necessary, under the circumstances, could be held as valid termination. The order of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. The back benefits held in deposit may be returned to the appellant company.