QAREEBUR REHMAN Versus MESSRS MEHRAN BOTTLERS LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:‑

The appellant was appointed by the respondent as a driver on 2-5‑1984 and his services were terminated on the 24th of October, (sic). He has served the respondent with a grievance notice but (sic) no satisfactory reply filed a petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed. An appeal was preferred before the Tribunal and it came to be disposed of solely on the ground that in the Labour Court the grievance petition had been presented by his counsel alone. A writ petition' was filed by the appellant and the order of my learned predecessor has been quashed with a direction for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Before the Labour Court the appellant was his only witness and two persons were examined on behalf of the respondent namely Muhammad Hanif and Seraj. The evidence of these latter witnesses was that the respondents manufactured beverages which is in short demand during the winter and therefore perforce they have to engage some seasonal workers for a specified period, whose services are terminated on the advent of winter. The petitioner was a driver for such a contingency and though his services could be terminated without notice yet they had taken care to give him a letter of termination by hand delivery, and the same has been placed on the record. They had also produced the letter of appointment which admittedly bears the signature of the appellant. He admitted the signature but all that he had to say, was that he was not aware of the contents. Obviously that would be neither here nor there.

3. The short question in this case to consider would be if the appointment was for a specified period, would‑ a separate letter of termination be at all necessary to be served?

4. I had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Muneer Khan v. Pakistan Steel in Appeal No. KAR‑429/91 and on the basis of the judgments in (1) Muhammad Rafiq v. Karam Textile Mills Limited 1992 PLC 707, (2) Zulfiqar Hyder v. Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court and another 1992 PLC 665, (3) Allah Ditta v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and (4) Pak Cement Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 19W PLC 233. I had come to the conclusion that service of a separate notice in such cases was not necessary.

5. There is no gainsaying the fact that the demand for soft drinks goes down during winter and therefore there is every justification for the recruitment of some temporary workers:

6. Since Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi had also raised the question though not material in the present case, that juniors had been admittedly retained while the services of the appellant were terminated also loses all force, as the appellant did not have a licence for driving heavy vehicles which the others had. On the showing of the respondent their services also had been dispensed with a little later.

7. Nothing has been urged before me to revise my view on this aspect of the law. It was for this reason that I did not call upon the learned counsel for the respondent to address.

8. I will therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2086/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.