' While working as Electrician in Lucky Cement Limited, Lakki Marwat the services of Muhammad Ismail, respondent herein, were terminated as 'no more required' by order dated 9-6-2000 of Deputy General Manager (P&A), Lucky Cement Limited. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent challenged the action of the management by filing a grievance petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bannu seeking his reinstatement -in service with full back-benefits. The petition was resisted on all grounds legal as well as factual and claim of the respondent was denied. The controversial pleadings of the parties resulted in framing of the following issues:--
(1) Whether this petition is incompetent as the petitioner is no longer a workman, no industrial dispute was pending on 9-6-2000 and his termination too gave birth to no industrial dispute?
(2) Whether termination order of the petitioner is void, mala fide and is liable to be set aside?
(3) Whether the petitioner was illegally terminated and no opportunity of being heard was provided to him?
(4) Whether petitioner is entitled to the relief in his grievance petition?
2. Upon consideration of the material available on file, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bannu by means of his judgment and order dated 17-1-2002, accepted the grievance petition, set aside the impugned order of termination and directed that the respondent be reinstated with back-benefits. The management of Lucky Cement Limited, feeling dissatisfied, has filed instant Labour Appeal which is before me for consideration.
3. I have heard at length Mr. Abdul Hafiz Amjad, Advocate for the appellant/Management and Mr. Muhammad Shahnawaz Sikandari, Advocate for the respondent. I have also gone through the material available on file with their able assistance.
4. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant/management that the service of an employee can be terminated at any time if his services are n9 more required by the employer, fulfilling the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter. The respondent found surplus and junior most; his services have been terminated on the basis of one month notice pay.
5. According to Standing Order No,12 of Industrial and Commercial Establishment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the employment of permanent workman can be terminated for any reason other than misconduct through one month notice either by the employer or by the workman.
6. In order to resolve the controversy, I deem it proper to reproduce below the relevant provisions of section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002) which read:-- "40. Redress of individual grievances.
(1) A worker may ...................
(2) Where a worker ................
(3) If an employer .................
(4) In adjudicating ................
(5) The Labour Court, in case the termination of services of a workman is held to be wrongful, may award compensation equivalent to not less than twelve months and not more than thirty months basic pay last drawn and house rent, if admissible, in lieu of reinstatement of the worker in service."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/management contended with justification that the service of grievance notice under section 25-A of the Ordinance (ibid) by the respondent to the management was mandatory but the service has not been proved satisfactorily which has rendered the grievance petition as not maintainable. Maula Bakhsh v. Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. (1980 PLC 752) (Labour Appellate Tribunal Baluchistan), Muhammad Anwar v. UBL Head Office (1974 PLC Note 104 (5th Sindh Labour Court), Messrs Nida-e-Millat (Nawai Waqt), Karachi v. Salahuddin Toor and 6 others (1991 PLC 591 (Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh) and District Council, Sargodha v. Sher Muhammad (1980 PLC 426).
8. So far as the question regarding 'payment of back-benefits is concerned, there is no evidence that the respondent remained jobless during the pendency of his petition and thus he was entitled to claim back-benefits. The respondent has been held entitled for grant of back-benefits without any justification. The claim is not sustainable.
9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 17-1-2002 and dismiss the petition. However, respondent shall be entitled for compensation equivalent to eighteen months basic pay last drawn and house rent, if admissible, in terms of subsection (5) of section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. I shall make no order as to costs.