' Mukhtar Ahmad's grievance petition, filed on 23-11-1992 under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was dismissed on 11-7-1995 by Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore. He has preferred the present appeal.
2. Mukhtar Ahmad was appointed as Qasid on 18-4-1992, and his services were terminated on 18- 8-1992. He was on probation for one year. Admittedly, no show-cause notice was issued and no formal enquiry was held. Against the appellant. The respondent maintains that such formalities were not required, as during probation period an official/employee could be ousted from service at any moment, as was provided in the letter of appointment (Exh.R-1). It is, however, to be borne in mind that legal position now is different. Under provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, an employee would be deemed to have become permanent, on expiry of three months' period from the date of his initial appointment. To say that the appellant had accepted the conditions, as incorporated' in the appointment order Exh. R-1, at the time of his recruitment, would be a fallacious argument, as statutory provision will prevail and any condition of service to the contrary would be meaningless.
Actually, it has been pronounced by the superior Courts of the country that, even during probation period an employee is entitled to issuance of a show-cause notice, which requirement cannot be dispensed with, on any pretext. The employer was duty bound to have called upon the employee to explain his conduct by issuing him a show-cause notice in writing, and on obtaining his explanation similarly in writing, further action against the employee should have been taken, in accordance with law.
3. It cannot be pleaded that the job being temporary, services of the employee could, at any time, be terminated. Probation period being one year, it could safely be assumed that the post, in question, was not for a shorter duration. Actually, the appointment order dated 16-4-1992 (Exh.R 1) leaves little doubt in that regard. Mukhtar Ahmad had been selected against a regular vacancy, and one month notice was required to be given, if his services were proposed to be dispensed with, for any valid reason. He was actually offered salary for one month in lieu of such notice. The learned Labour Court has fallen in error in concluding that it was a temporary appointment and further that during probation period the employee could be ousted from service without being issued a show-cause notice or a charge-sheet and without being made to face an enquiry.
4. In the termination order (Exh. R-2), issued on 17-8-1992, it is stated that Mukhtar Ahmad had not been punctual and was a habitual absentee from duty, and his performance otherwise also was unsatisfactory: he had failed to improve the same despite repeated warnings. It is indeed an odd order. One fails to follow, how in a short span of four months, performance of an official could be judged in an objective and conclusive manner. Well, if, actually, Mukhtar Ahmad was an incorrigible official, any documentary evidence in that behalf should have been forthcoming. Attendance register about his absence from duty or about his late coming could be produced. If at all he had been issued any warning, the same could also be brought on record, together with reply of the official, which he was expected to have tendered. It is, however, to be noted that in evidence respondents' representative, Mr. Sarwar Naeem, appearing as RW-1, in the Labour Court had deposed that the only reason for terminating services of the official was his absence from duty, reported by the Deputy General Manager Law to the Managing Director through the General Manager Administration. No mention of any warnings administered to the official has been made.
While cross-examining Mukhtar Ahmad, petitioner; it has been put to him that he had been given warnings verbally, from which it will follow that there was no record available in that regard.
5. In the course of arguments, the appellant had, without any fear of contradiction, stated before me that he had actually become a victim of some friction or enmity, having been generated amongst his superiors. 'Equation' of one who had recruited him with his colleagues or a higher officer, had been disturbed, and the latter had frankly told him that he would not spare him. The way this matter was handled by the officers of the PASSCO would really suggest that most probably this assertion may not be devoid of truth and the poor workman might have fallen prey to the mutual bickerings of the officers above, and he had, in a callous way, been deprived of his means of livelihood, in an arbitrary and unlawful manner. The impugned order passed by the Authorities cannot be sustained on any valid premises. The same is liable to be set aside. I would decline to endorse the decision rendered by the learned Labour Court, and would accept the appeal of the official with costs. Since he has been made to suffer for no fault on his part, he will, certainly, be entitled to the back benefits in entirety.