DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent.
2. The respondent was ea the permanent employment of the appellant working in the workshop situated at Abdullah. Haroon Road, Karachi. The workshop was closed and the respondent was transferred to the factory owned by the same person. But after two days his service was terminated by the following letter .- "We regret to inform you that your services have become surplus since the workshop where you were employed has already been closed down. We had made attempt to absorb you elsewhere but, since you have not been found suitable we are left with no alternative except to serve with one month notice of termination of your services effective from 16-8-76 as per terms and conditions of your service."
3. Aggrieved by this, the respondent served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court, under section 25.A, I. R.
0. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that no inquiry was necessary as the respondent was not found suitable for the job which he was required to perform in the factory.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal on the ground that some persons junior to the respondent were retained and, therefore, there was violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance which provides that the workman who is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workman, the employer shall retrench the workman who is the last person employed in that category. The appellant was a painter and admittedly junior painters were retained in service Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.
5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am of the view that no exception can be taken t the order passed by the Labour Court. The respondents service was terminated because, it was alleged, that he was not found suitable for the job which was entrusted to him. It has not been pleaded that the category of work in the workship was different from one in the factory. He was a painter in the workshop and there were also painters in the factory, where persons junior to him were retained. There is nothing on record to show that there was any special technique for the work done in the factory. Even if it is presumed, that he was inefficient and, therefore, his service was terminated, this arm unted to be a punishment and this could not be done without charge-sheet and holding an inquiry. Thus the termination of service was vitiated.
6. In the result I dismiss the appeal. It is, however, open to the appellant to charge-sheet the respondent and hold an inquiry and take such action in accordance with law.