By the present judgment I propose to dispose of two appeals, captioned above, as the same arise out of the one and the same order, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No, 7, at Gujranwala, on 3- 10-1995.
2. Soofi Hidayatullah was initially on 8-4-1991 appointed as Store- Keeper by Ws. Granular (Pvt.)
Limited, Karachi. He has, however, also been operating as Sales Field Supervisor; but the learned lower Court has treated him as a workman keeping in view the nature of the job that he had been performing. Provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were also held to be applicable to his case; and it was observed that as he had been ousted from service on 22-9-1993, and someone else had been appointed in his place, without a show-cause notice, a charge-sheet, and without making him to face an enquiry, the order of his dismissal from service was not sustainable in law.
3. The learned lower Court has referred to a letter dated 29-10-1991, Exh. P-2, indicating that the post of Field Supervisor from 21-7-1990 to 31-10-1990 had been offered to Hidayatullah as a temporary measure, with a- nominal increase in pay. The permanent letter of appointment Exh. P-3 had been issued on 8-4-1991, with reference to his application dated 5-2-1991, and interview held on the following day, i,e, 6-2-1991. His appointment had been made actually as a Store-keeper, with consolidated salary of Rs,2,500 per month. He had, however, been promised to be placed on the permanent roll of the staff, subject to satisfactory completion of the probationary period. In the appointment letter, at conditions Nos. 6 and 7, a provision was made for termination of his services, or his dismissal from service, subject to certain conditions. It is, however, so well-known that such term or conditions of service is generally incorporated in the appointment letters, but it has seldom been given effect to by the law Courts, the reason being that such condition runs counter to the legal parlance and the employer has never been allowed to enjoy liberty of ousting his employees from service in an arbitrary and dictatorial manner. Exh. P. 4 is the letter dated 22-9-1993, terminating the services of Soofi Hidayatullah, with immediate effect, without observance of any legal formality, the only exception being that the employee was offered one month's salary in lieu of notice and he was told that his services were no more required by the company.
4. No material has been placed on record to establish that the probationary period, as stipulated by condition No, 1 of the appointment letter Exh. P-3, had been extended or initially its time-limit had been laid down. This being the factual and legal position, there remains no doubt about the fact that the employee was a workman and was entitled to a show-cause notice, as also a charge-sheet, and he could not be made to quit service, except on proof of charge of misconduct, to be established through a formal enquiry, which Soofi Hidayatullah was never made to go through. The learned lower Court thus was absolutely justified in setting aside the order of Soofi Hidayatullah's removal from service, in the manner it was done. Similarly there was absolute legal justification for ordering his reinstatement in service, particularly as the post of Store-keeper, which manual post he held till the end, did exist and did not become extinct, Soofi Hidayatullah having made over the charge of the post of Store-keeper to one Asad Malik. By no means, Soofi Hidayatullah was liable to removal from service, without observance of the legal formalities, as laid down by the Labour Laws.
5. On 28-9-1995 Hidayatullah signed a statement that he was not interested in the back benefits, if his reinstatement in service was ordered. Hidayatullah is now endeavoring to wriggle out of this commitment, but he cannot possibly be permitted to do so. Hidayatullah had on 26-12-1995 filed an appeal of his own, claiming back benefits. This appeal, as per office report, was badly time- barred, and could not be allowed, on that score alone. I would dismiss Soofi Hidayatullah's appeal about payment of back benefits and would also dismiss the Establishment's appeal filed against Soofi Hidayatullah, assailing validity of Labour Court's order dated 3-10-1995. There shall be no order as to costs.