' This is an appeal against the decision dated 4-1-1977 of Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore.
2. Syed Anwar Shah, appellant was appointed as bad!! Conductor on 24-5-1976 vide appointment letter Exh. R-1. His services were terminated with effect from 30-7-1976 vide order dated 1-7-1976 Exh. P-1 on account of unsatisfactory work and conduct without any enquiry being held against him. He challenged the order of termination of his services by way of a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same vide decision under appeal.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Syed Anwar Shah, appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant being a conductor, filed this petition in respect of a right guaranteed c secured to him by or under section 7 of the Road Transport Women Ordinance, XXVIII of 1961, which reads as under :- "Restriction on termination of services etc.-The services of a worker shall not be terminated without sufficient cause nor unless and until one month's previous notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof has been given to him and he has been paid his pay for any period of leave admissible to him, of which he did not avail himself while in service.
5. This Ordinance does not make any distinction between a temporary or permanent employee. All employees are governed by section 7 of the said Ordidance. This Ordinance was amended by the Road Transport Workers (Amendment) Ordinance, XI, 1974 which came into force on 27th September, 1974. The amendment reads as follows :- "W. P. Ordinance No, VI of 1968 to reply to Road Transport Service.- The provisions of Standing Orders 10-B, 10-C, 12, other than those contained in clause (2) thereof, 13, 14 other than the proviso thereto, and 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (West Pakistan Ordinance, No, VI of 1968), as in force for the time being shall apply to every road transport service as if such road transport service were an industrial establishment to which the aforesaid Ordinance had been applied by a notification under clause (c) of subsection
(4) of section 1 thereof, and as if a worker was a workman or permanent workman, as the case may be, within the meaning of that Ordinance.
6. From the above it is clear that Standing Order 12(2) has not been made applicable. According to Standing Order 12(5). Which has been made applicable, the services of a permanent or temporary workman shall not be terminated on the ground of misconduct otherwise than in the manner prescribed in the Standing Order 15.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the termination of services of the appellant on the ground of unsatisfactory work and conduct amounted to misconduct and, therefore, his services could not have been terminated otherwise than in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 15. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case, Muhammad Siddique 'avid Chaudhary v. Government of West Pakistan wherein it was held that a probationer whose services bad been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work was entitled to a show-cause notice if there were allegations of corruption also. In the present case, in addition to the allegation of unsatisfactory work there was allegation of unsatisfactory conduct, for which the appellant was entitled to a show-cause notice also. In other words, his services could not have been terminated other than in a manner prescribed in Standing Order 15.
8. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re-instated with back benefits. PLD 1974 SC 393