DECISION ' This appeal arises from order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, allowing grievance petition under section 25-A of respondent Tufail Ahmed, Assistant, for re-instatement and full back benefits.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was appointed by the appellants, Hinopak Motors Limited as an Office Assistant on 27-12-1992. His order of appointment shows that he was appointed in a temporary job likely to last for three months and on completion of the assigned job his services "shall stand automatically terminated". He was to be paid as salary Rs,2,300 p.m. Plus Rs,200 p.m. Allowances. The employment was essentially of temporary nature likely to last beyond three months but his employment could be terminated at any time during the period of temporary appointment namely three months. The appointment, however, was not automatically terminated but was extended up to 20-9-1993 i,e, from 27-12-1992 to 20-9-1993 i,e, for six days less than nine months.
3. The order of termination reads as under:-- "Please refer to your letter of appointment dated 27-12-1992. We have to advise you that your services are terminated with effect from 20-9-1993 (A.N.). You are advised to collect your dues, if any from our Finance Department."
4. The grievance of the respondent is that his services were extended on permanent basis and his termination, though in writing, mentions no reasons for the termination as required under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
5. On the other hand the case of the appellant Hinopak Motors is that the respondent was appointed in temporary post for a fixed period, therefore, no reasons were required to be given, that he was appointed due to increase of work in relation to the then Prime Minister's Yellow Cab Scheme, that since the scheme was suddenly stopped the services of all temporary employees totaling 337 were terminated as a result of re-organisation. The orders of these employees have been produced. In all these orders of termination the reason is mentioned due to discontinuation of Prime Minister's Transport Scheme but in the order of the termination of the respondent there is no such mention.
6. The respondent's case is that he was kept in a permanent and clear vacancy which was to continue for indefinite time and that this had been admitted by Mr. Ahsan Kamal, Personnel Manager of the appellants in his cross-examination. His admission reads as under:-- "It is correct that the post of Assistant is a permanent post, it used to exist in the past and it continued to exist. It is not a fact that the applicant was illegally and wrongly terminated from service."
' Under Standing Orders Ordinance Schedule 1-B permanent workman is defined to be a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months when the workman has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months. These conditions appear to have been complied with in the case of the respondent.
7. Under Standing Order 12 employer can terminate the services of a workman whether permanent or temporary and observe certain formalities. In case of permanent workman one month's notice has to be given or one month's wages are to be paid in lieu of notice. In case of temporary, workman no such notice is necessary. However, clause (3) of Standing Order 12 applies to a workman in general and requires that when he is removed or retrenched it shall be done by an order in writing "which shall explicitly state the reasons for the action taken". In case the workman is aggrieved by termination of his service he can proceed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., '1969 and file his grievance petition.
8. In the present- case admittedly "explicit reasons" are not stated in the order of termination of the respondent. There is reference in the order of termination to the order of original appointment but that period of three months' probation had already been completed and the services of the respondent were extended as alleged on permanent footing. The reason should have been mentioned in the order of termination just as in the case of other 337 workers. One is, therefore, at a loss to know the actual reason for getting rid of this Assistant who was holding a post of permanent nature. As held by the Labour Court, the termination was in violation of Standing Order 12(3). In his grievance application and in his affidavit the respondent has claimed that he had remained jobless throughout this period of the termination. He has, therefore, been rightly allowed full back benefits as his claim has not been controverted. The decision of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal of Hinopak Motors Ltd. Is dismissed.