DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was reinstated in service of the Bank with full back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent Ali Gul was appointed as Godown-Keeper/Clerk/Cashier in the United Bank from October, 1991 at the Qazi Ahmad Branch. His services were orally terminated by the Bank on 2-2-1994. He preferred his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. On 21- 3-1994 which was heard and disposed of by the Labour Court.
3. It is the case of the appellant Bank that the respondent was appointed temporarily and worked with the appellant Bank seasonally after completion of the ginning season his services were being terminated and he was appointed against the account of M/s. Umar Cotton Factory Qazi Ahmad.
4. It is thus admitted that the respondent was appointed by the Bank as a seasonal employee. The respondent has produced a number of documents to show that he worked in the Cash Department of the Bank. That he received the cheques, issued tokens under his initial and also prepared entries in the Scroll Book. All the documents have been produced on record bearing his initial A.-G. He applied to the Bank for being made permanent but he received the reply from the Bank that he was engaged as a seasonal worker on 1-10-1991 purely on contractual basis and 'against the party's account that is the account of Unarh Cotton Factory Qazi Ahmad and on closure of the factory his services were being terminated. The learned Advocate for the Bank makes a statement that there was no contract and there was no document to suggest that he was appointed for a fixed term.
5. It is thus clear that the respondent was appointed as a temporary worker for each season by the bank and he also worked in the Bank as a clerk initiating the Bank token and other registers. It is also admitted that his services were terminated, without any written order giving reasons for his termination explicitly, as required under Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. His termination was therefore in violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance and it does not matter that his salary was being recovered from the account of Unarh Cotton Factory. His services were not controlled by the factory but by the Bank.
6.Under the circumstances the respondent was rightly reinstated as a seasonal worker by the Labour Court and allowed back benefits.
7. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal of the Bank is dismissed.