' This appeal which has been filed by Ali Akbar arose from the order dated 17-8-1999 of Sindh Labour Court No,VI Hyderabad. The appellant's case as stated in his Memo. Of appeal is that he was employed as seasonal Clerk in M/s. Fauji Sugar Mills Tando Muhammad Khan (hereinafter called respondent Mills) with effect from 25-10-1991. He challenged his removal from service in grievance Petition registered as No,141 of 1991 which was decided in his favour with order of his reinstatement vide order dated 9-4-1992. The respondent Mills preferred appeal from the said order which remained until 22-5-1996 when it was accepted and the order of Labour Court was set aside.
2. In the meantime the appellant was reinstated in service with effect from 1-10-1993 as the Lower DMsion Clerk in the Cane Department as a seasonal worker on the start of crushing season. As soon as said season came to close he was also discharged from service with effect from 2-4-1994.
In the Termination Order it was mentioned that his performance having remained unsatisfactory duri,.g the crushing season of 1993-94 he would not be called for further service in the next crushing season. The order of termination appears at Annexure-R/3 and the Confidential Report is at Annexure-R/4. Since the respondent Mill employed as many as 2000 workers, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were fully applicable to them. However, no opportunity was provided to the appellant against Annual Confidential Report. In the letter of termination the respondent Management got the appellant signed Final Statement showing as if he had received all his dues towards full and final settlement but the appellant being sensional worker was not entitled to any service benefit except his earned wages. However, his grievance petition was dismissed by Order dated 17-8-1999 and hence this appeal.
2-A. The respondent-Mills contested the grievance petition and filed their written reply: According to their version given in the written statement the appellant was found guilty of cheating and was, therefore, removed from service in 1991. Their further plea is that he was subsequently taken on duty in pursuance of the Orders of the Court passed in his previous grievance application and he used to attend the Office of respondent-Management. His performance during crushing season 1993-94 was adjusted as unsatisfactory. Therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated 2-4-1994 with remarks that his services were no longer required and because of unsatisfactory performance he would not be called for next season. He was, however, paid all his dues in fall and final settlement. The prayer of the respondent-Management was that his grievance petition be dismissed.
3. The parties led their evidence by filing affidavit-in-evidence. The appellant filed his own affidavit in support of his case whereas Col. (Reid.) Haq Nawaz Khan filed his affidavit-in-evidence on behalf to the respondent Mill.
4. I have carefully perused the aforesaid affidavits and also heard the learned counsel of the parties.
5. From the issues framed by the learned lower Court of them are significant and deserve attention.
The first issue is about the status of the appellant's wherether he is a workman or not in support of this Issue the appellants statement was that he was appointed as seasonal Lower Division Clerk in respondent-Mill with effect from 25th October, 1977 and since then he had been rendering services' in that capacity. In reply statement filed by the respondent-Mill it is not denied that appellant was appointed as seasonal lower division clerk in the Mill though he was not a permanent worker as he had claimed. In any case there is no controversy with regard is to appellant's status being a worker.
As such all the labour laws including Standing\ Order Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to him.
6. The main Issue framed by the learned lower Court was whether. Appellant was dismissed illegally. The Order of his removal at R-3 shows that he was not dismissed from service but rather his services were terminated under section 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The perusal of the said section shows that if employment of a permanent workman for any reason other than misconduct was terminated, one month's notice or one month's wages calculated on the basis of average wages earned by the workman during the last three months shall be paid to him in lieu of notice. In this case not only the appellant himself claims to be permanent workman but the fact that he had been engaged by the respondent-Mill in every season since 1977 shows that he enjoyed the status of permanent workman. It would appear that in order to dispense with services of permanent workman unless there is allegation of misconduct against him, it would be enough to give one month's notice or in lieu thereof, one month's wages calculated on the basis of average wages- earned by him during the last three months. It appears to me that the termination order carries the endorsement at its end which shows that the workman had received his dues in full and final payment. Accordingly the mandatory provision was compled with the purpose of dispensing with services. Admittedly the reason of termination of his service was his unsatisfactory performance. As such reason for termination of his services had also been mentioned. Of course it was contended by the learned counsel of the appellant that since he was not allowed to work for the relevant period it could not be said that appellant's performance for that period was unsatisfactory. The respondent-Mills have, however, denied the appellant's assertion that he was not allowed to work during the season. On the contrary it is clear from record that he was taken on 1-10-1993 and continued to work until 2-4-1994 when his services were terminated as stated above.
I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of respondent-Mill that appellant continued to perform his duties. However, the appellant's Head of Department was not satisfied by his job performance and lack of interest in his duty and therefore, he was correctly intimated that he would not be taken in the next crushing season. Such Confidential Report has also been produced on record, and it is based on authentic material.
7. In a case like this where no misconduct was involved it was not necessary to hold any enquiry.
The appellant's termination of service was termination simpliciter. For ordering such termination all the requirements of Standing Order 12 have been complied. There is nothing illegal about the appellant's Order. Unsatisfactory performance amounts to inefficiency which cannot be placed at par with misconduct, requiring any enquiry.
' For above reason, I uphold the judgment of the lower Court and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.