By an order dated 15-12-1991, services of Muhammad Ashraf, respondent Supervisor, were terminated, and the said order was successfully brought under challenge by having recourse to the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, as his grievance petition was accepted on 14-6-1993, and he was ordered to be reinstated in service, although without back benefits. The 'Authorities' of the Provincial Buildings Department have preferred the present appeal.
2. Muhammad Ashraf was employed as supervisor, and was removed from service, as Lineman, on 30-12-1991, according to him. There was one percent quota reserved for disabled persons in Government service. The Chief Engineer, Buildings Department, South Zone, Lahore had addressed letter Exh. P-4 to all the Superintending Engineers, and similarly the Government had intimated all the Administrative Secretaries, Heads of attached Departments and the Commissioners that disabled persons were not to be ignored, at the the of fresh recruitment, one percent being their quota (Exhs. P.4 to P-27).
3. The appellants maintain that the respondent being a work-charged employee, he could be retained in service, subject to availability of funds and continuance of the projects in question, and that as such, the employee had no vested right to claim permanent absorption in the set-up.
Through a written order dated 15-12-1991, the respondent had been removed from service, and as he had refused to receive the same, a copy had been affixed at the notice board for his information. The grievance petition, preceded by the grievance notice, was stated to be barred by the law of limitation.
4. Assertion of the employee that his services had been terminated by a verbal order and in an arbitrary fashion, it seems, has no- substance, but there is no denying the fact, and it has been admitted by the appellants, respondents before the Labour Court, that he is a disabled person. A witness of the respondents, having appeared as R.W.1, has made a statement to the effect that 60/70 work-charged employees in the Division are still on the rolls of the establishment. It is then not known as to why had the respondents picked up, for an adverse action and for his ouster from service, Ashraf alone. According to the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and) Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, an employee having remained in service continuously for a period exceeding nine months would acquire a permanent status, and his removal from service cannot be ordered, except through due process of law, that is, by observance of all the, legal formalities, as issuance of show-cause notice and a charge-sheet and holding of a regular departmental enquiry into alleged incidents of delinquency or misconduct. There is no such charge against the employee; and dispensation of his services, simpliciter, in accordance with the whims of the 'Authorities', would obviously not be justified.
5. Termination order was issued on 16-12-1991, the same being Exhs. R-3 and R-4. Since the order admittedly was not despatched to the employee by post, and there is no authentic evidence in proof of the allegation that he had refused to receive the order, the assertion as regards the grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition, being the-barred, would not evidently be tenable, especially as his departmental appeals, Exhs. P-15, 16 and 23, had not been decided.
Keeping in view the nature of the duty performed by the respondent, he has to be taken as a workman, entitled to protection of the Labour Laws and to have vindication of his status and security in service, on having recourse to the Labour Court. The impugned order of respondent's removal from service, as such, is not sustainable in law. The order of the Labour Court setting aside the said order must be taken to be unexceptionable. I would, therefore, dismiss the department's appeal as being devoid of merit.
6. The respondent has filed cross-objections, laying claim to back benefits. Having been removed from service on no valid premises, and having remained jobless ever since the incident of his dismissal from service, the respondent, in my considered opinion, is entitled to half of the back C benefits, for the period during which he was not on the rolls of the Construction Division of the Medical College, Faisalabad. I am not conceding to him the benefits in entirety, as he has practically not served the establishment, although for no fault on his part.