' As appeal has been filed by Nisu Ahmed, ex-Head Jobber, United Textile Mills Fazalabad, Multan, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 17th December, 1974, whereby his application for re-instatement in service was dismissed. He was terminated-vide orders of the respondent, dated 12th September, 1974 (photostat Exh. R. 1 in which it was mentioned that as one of the post of jobber was going to be abolished his services were no longer required. The learned lower Court regarded this order as sufficient compliance with the Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and dismissed his petition. The relevant provision reads as follows :- ' S.
0. 12 (3).-The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they applied to the redress of an individual grievance.
' The language of the provision is quite clear and does not sustain the meaning to terminate a permanent workman by merely stating to the effect that his job has been abolished and his services are no longer required. On the other hand the subsection requires the management to first make out a case for the abolition of the job on domestic level by giving suitable reasons for such abolition. This reason should be expressly mentioned in the termination order in the absence whereof the termination cannot be regarded to have been based on an order in writing explicitly stating the reason for the action taken as required by the relevant provision. Any under-indulgence shown in the interpretation of the aforesaid subsection in favour of the Management would certainly pave way for the victimization of innocent workers on the simple plea of non requirement without any enquiry into the allegation of misconduct against them. Formerly there was no such provision in the Industrial Disputes Act and for the retrenchment of any worker no order in writing explicitly stating the reason for the action was needed. After the amendment of the subsection it has been made incumbent on the Management of an industry to make an order of retrenchment or discharge in writing which should explicitly state the reason for the action taken against the worker. In other words over and above the discharge order passed against a worker the case of retrenchment is needed to be thrashed on official level by the Management and the abolition of the job being approved by a competent officer of the Management, the same should be mentioned in the termination order handed over to the worker. In the present case the appellant has been terminated simply on the basis of a final notice of discharge addressed to him on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Management on the ground of the abolition of the job without mentioning any reason justifying that abolition. Under the circumstances the termination order could not be held as legal and in keeping with the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order being set aside, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with all his back benefits. The file may be consigned.
Appeal accepted.