DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, allowing the petition of respondent, Pervaiz Akhtar, for reinstatement under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. The respondent was appointed as a Waiter in the Hotel Holiday Inn on 30-5-1981. He was confirmed. The respondent, thereafter, took active part in his Union. He was charge-sheeted and removed but he was, afterwards, reappointed as a Waiter on 1-10-1986. In January, 1989, the respondent was promoted and re-designated as Incharge Pastry Department. There was only one other worker with him and he had no supervisory and managerial duties to perform. He continued to work in Pastry Unit.
3. The respondent proceeded on leave from 1-2-1989 to 4-3-1989 and left for India. There he fell ill and applied for extension of leave with Medical Certificates from qualified Doctors dated 1-3-1989 and 15-3-1989 that he was suffering from Enteric fever,. The Hotel Management, however, issued a charge-sheet for misconduct of remaining absent for more than ten days. The enquiry was fixed on 5-4-1989 and the respondent hurried from India and reached Karachi on the same day in the evening but the date of enquiry was not extended at his request and he was served with a registered letter on 12-4-1989 intimating to him that his services had been terminated for the reason that they were no longer required. The respondent, then, instituted proceedings under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The Labour Court found that although the designation of the respondent was changed as Supervisor/Incharge Pastry Department he was doing the same work.
The Cashier whom he was supposed to supervise was drawing more pay than him. That he was first charge-sheeted for misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance but this operation was given up and his services were terminated simpliciter for the reason that they were no longer required. Under Order 12(3) the management were required to mention explicit reasons for termination of his service and it has been held in several decisions that "services no longer required" cannot be considered to be explicit reason.
4. The Labour Court, accordingly, allowed the grievance petition and set aside the order of termination. The respondent was reinstated in service within a month of the date of the order.
5. I have gone through the record and scrutinized the judgment of the Labour Court and I find the judgment to be well-reasoned and proper. Mr. Muhammad Humayun, Advocate for the hotel management has not been able to show any ground for interference. The respondent continued to be a worker in spite of the change in his designation and he was first charge-sheeted and then his seryices were terminated simplicity without giving any reason, in violation of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
6. The judgment of the Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal is dismissed.