DECISION ' The brief factsof this appeal are that appellant sarfraz ali filed grievance petition under section 25-A,I.R.O.1969 for thia reinstatement and bak benefits .His case was that he was employeed as a inspector in Respondent's Establishment on permanent basis on 25-1-1996. The nature of his duty was purely clerical though he also did manual work at seaport.However,he was removed from service on6-2-1998 without assigning any reason, by verbal order. Thus, his removal was in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as no Termination Letter for his removal was issued in writing. Being aggrieved by his oral removal from service he served grievance notice upon the respondents Management on 12-3-1998. The reply of the notice was given on 24th March, 1998, However, his grievance petition was dismissed by order, dated 1st March, 2000 of Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi and hence this appeal.
2. I have heard Mr.Muhamamd Tasnim, Advocate on, behalf of the appellant and Mr. M.L. Shahani, Advocate for the Respondents Establishment.Both the learned counsel agreed that the only point to be resolved in this case was whether order of termination of the appellant which was oral was in violation of the law and hence illegal. Therefore, they confined their arguments only to the said point. It was submitted by Mr. Muhammad Tasnim that it was mandatory under Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 to issue the order of removal of any workman in writing stating the reason for the removal. Since the appellant's removal was admittedly made by verbal order, it was in violation of the aforesaid provision of law and hence illegal. In support of his view he cited The case of Karachi High Court reported as 1997 PLC 451 which was decided by the Division Bench consisting of even learned counsel for the respondents Mr. M.L. Shahani (as he was then Justice of the said Court). It was clearly held in the said case that clause (3) of Order 12 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which deals with termination of employment was applicable to workman irrespective of whether he is permanent or temporary. Thus, the above authority reinforces the express provision of law embodied in Order 12(3) referred to above that termination of employment shall, be by order in writing which shall explicity state the reasons for the removal. This view was reitered in another case of the same High Court reported as 1998 PLC 83.
3. In view of the above legal position, admittedly verbal order of the appellant's removal from service was in violation of the above law and therefore, was illegal. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has attempted to circumvent the express provisions of law with regard to removal by contending that the appointment of appellant being for a fixed period, his appointment automatically ceased to exist on expiry of the said period and therefore, written order was not necessary. In this connection he has relied upon again on the case of Karachi High Court reported as 1993 PLC 303. It was held in the reported case that:-- "Once the date on which the services of the respondent were to be terminated and the reasons for such action were communicated to him, in our view, the employer was not obliged to serve the respondent with another notice under Standing Order 12(3) particularly when the services of the respondent could be terminated by the petitioners at any time without notice even if the work for which the respondent had been employed had not yet been concluded.Once the status of respondent No,3 was not in dispute, it was for the employer to determine when his services would be required to be terminated. Consequently, in our opinion, both the learned Tribunals below were not justified in ordering reinstatement of the respondent in service.'
4. However I am of the view that the above reported case is distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as that in the present case there are two orders of appointment, one dated 25th January, 1996 and the other dated 30th October, 1996.No doubt in the first order the period of appointment was declared valid for sixty days only but in the subsequent order no definite date for termination of appointment has been given. All what is stated in the said order is that work being of temporary nature is likely to finish before 31-1-1997. Therefore, there was no certainty expressed in the order on what date the appointment was to be finished. In such a case it was necessary to inform the appointee i,e, appellant by order in writing that his services were no longer required and were, therefore, terminated as required by express provision of law discussed above. Admittedly no order in writing was issued regarding the termiantion of services of the appellant. The verbal order of his removal was not in accordance with the law and, therefore, was illegal. I regret my inability to endorse the decision of the learned Labour Court. Consequently the appeal filed by the appellant workman is allowed and the judgment of the Lower Court is set aside.