DECISION ; These are three similar appeals by the Sui Southern Gas Company against their workmen. Since the issues of law and fact are common they will all be disposed of by this common decision.
2. The respondents were appointed as Meter Readers due to increase in volume of work, as temporary workmen for six months.
3. Respondent Nizamuddin was appointed on 3-5-1990 and terminated on 28-2-1991.
4. Respondent Rizwan Ahmed was appointed on 28-10-1990 and terminated on 28-2-1991 and respondent Muhammad Salim Shah was appointed on 28-10-1990 and terminated on 28-2-1991.
5. The case of the respondent workers is that they were appointed against the jobs of permanent nature as Meter Readers and on completion of three months probation period they became permanent but their services were terminated without notice "with immediate effect", and the reasons for termination were not given which is in violation of the Standing Orders.
6. It has been argued by Mr. Iqbal Afridi for the Gas Company that the services of all the respondents were temporary and they had been appointed for the initial period of six months. Even if the period of their service exceeded six months, the nature of their duties were temporary. It was not, therefore, necessary to give explicit reasons for the termination and the termination was not therefore illegal as held by the Labour Court No, 1, Karachi.
7. It has on the other hand been argued by Mr. Gohar Iqbal and Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for the respondent workers that section 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 contained the mandatory provision for all types of workers whether permanent, temporary, probationer or badli. That their services were not to be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken.
8. The learned counsel for the Gas Company has cited decisions that where an employee is appointed temporarily for a fixed period he stands automatically terminated on the last date of the term and no further termination order would be necessary. Therefore, in case of temporary servants who had already knowledge of the date of termination of their service no further reasons for the termination were required. But in the present case their termination did not take place on the dates they were due for termination and they had necessarily to be served with fresh orders of termination. These orders however did not mention explicitly the reason for the action taken as required under section 12 subsection (3) of the Standing Orders. When the wordings of any law are plain and not ambiguous, the law has to be interpreted according to the literal connotation, but where the law suffers from an ambiguity then it is for the Courts to interpret the law according to the intention of the law makers. Section 12(3) does not qualify the workmen as permanent or temporary though subsection 12(1) applies to permanent workman and 12(2) applies to temporary, probationer or badli workman. Therefore, subsection (3) of section 12 is meant for all types of workmen and this subsection clearly mentions that the order of termination of their services has to be in writing explicitly stating the reason for the action taken. It cannot therefore be said that this subsection is meant only for permanent workers and the services of temporary workers can be terminated orally or without mentioning the reasons. Where the termination is not required, the appointment being for a fixed period the question of termination under section 12 would not arise.
In that case no order of termination of employment would be necessary. But in the present case though the workers were employed initially for six months, they have continued for more than 9 months and the termination of their service by a written order became necessary. That order would be defective if no reasons were mentioned.
9. It has also been argued in case of respondent Salim Shah that his junior had been retained while his services have been dispensed with. It is not however clear what was the nature of appointment of that junior whether he was taken on permanent basis or on temporary basis for six months. The order of the learned Labour Court No, 1 is accordingly maintained and the appeals are dismissed.