MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HAFIZABAD Versus SHAHBAZ MASIH

The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 18‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service was of absence for one and a quarter months without issuing any charge‑sheet and, holding any inquiry and even without passing an order in writing.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the services of the respondent were terminated within the period of probation of two years, it was not necessary to charge‑sheet him and to hold an inquiry. It has also been argued that since Municipal Committee, Hafizabad has its own statutory rules, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. It is not contended in the written statement that Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable. Only this much is contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, but it has not been disclosed on what ground the said Court had no jurisdiction. No rules have been brought on the record nor any have been cited at the Bar during arguments. Therefore, it cannot be said whether the appellant committee has actually its own Efficiency and Discipline Rules and if so, whether they enjoy the character of statutory rules. The other thing is that to oust the application of Standing Orders Ordinance two conditions are to be fulfilled as required by the first proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the said Ordinance. One condition is that such an establishment should be running by the Government or under the authority of the Government. Municipal Committees are autonomous bodies and not under the Government. They have their own budget. In the absence of evidence it cannot be said that the taxes recovered by the Municipal Committees go to the treasury or that the salaries, of the employees of the Committee are charged to the said treasury. The exchequer of the employees, therefore, is the committee and not the Government. If the Government gives any aid to the Municipal Committees, it does not mean that either such Committees become the department of the Government or get authority from the Government for their running. So Standing Orders Ordinance applies. According to Standing Order 1 of the said Ordinance, a person becomes permanent if he completes the probationary period of three months against a post of permanent character. Since the respondent worked for about two years, it cannot be said that the post was not permanent. Since he successfully completed the period of probation of three months, he became permanent and thus could not be terminated without following the procedure laid down in Standing Order 12(3). In the written statement it is contended that due to inefficiency the services of the respondent were terminated. According to S.O. 15(2) of Standing Orders Ordinance, inefficiency does not amount to misconduct, therefore, removal from service on this ground is not justifiable and legal.

4. However, back benefits have been wrongly allowed to the respondent. He did not assert that he remained jobless from the date of termination of his services. What he actually said is, "Now‑a‑days I am jobless". The actual word used is (Aaj Kal). He has not given the exact period for which he is jobless, therefore, back benefits cannot be calculated.

5. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent.

A.E./241/Lb. P Appeal partly accepted.