MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI
DECISION
This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the grievance application of the petitioner under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. The facts forming the background of the dispute, in short are that the petitioner was appointed as a `Fitter' by the respondents for 89 days only. The case as set up by the petitioner, however, was that his services came to be terminated verbally after he had put in 92 days. The termination being illegal, he had, therefore, sent a grievance notice which remained un-replied culminating in the filing of the petition before the Labour Court.
3. In the Written Reply, the receipt of the grievance notice was denied and inter alia it was stated that because the appointment was for a specified period it came to an end by efflux of time. However the respondent had given a termination letter to the petitioner on 30‑10‑1989, which the latter avoided to accept. The 1st of December, being a Friday was a public holiday, and the Mill remains closed on Saturday as a Weekly Holiday. He was asked to leave when he tried to resume on the 4th after his refusal to accept the, letter on the 3rd.
4. The petitioner was his own witness before the Labour Court. Mubarak Ali Syed, Deputy Manager (Administration) of the C.M.D. appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, found that there was no grievance notice served on the respondent, and otherwise too, the employment was for a specified period. It further found that employment given to other workers after the petitioner had left was in different categories. Under the circumstances there was no breach of clauses 12 and 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. It, therefore, dismissed the petition.
6. It is noteworthy that the respondents in the Written Reply did not specifically deny the receipt of the grievance notice. They stopped short by saying that it was not received by the CMD Department which is headed by a General Manager of its own. Mr. Mubarak Ali Syed added. that there were more than a score of Departments which were all headed by General Managers and all of them were competent authorities to hire and fire workmen of their section.
7. The notice in question had been despatched to the General Manager, Pakistan Steel Mills, a post which is not denied. The postal receipt having been produced, the presumption under section 26 of the General Clauses Act would arise that it was duly served. I would therefore hold that the grievance notice as required bylaw had duly been served.
8. Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the appellant contended that even the services of the temporary employee could not be terminated without a notice in writing, and in that context he referred to the cases of 1976 PLC 637; 1980 PLC (Tr.C.) 136; 1975 PLC 356 and 1990 PLC 233. There can be no quarrel with the proposition.
9. All that Mr. Abdus Samad, learned counsel for the respondent urged was that in cases where a period in the appointment letter is specified, a separate letter will not be necessary. He sought support for this proposition from the case of Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Altaf Ali 1982 PLC 503.
10. Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the appellant maintained that the appellant had worked for 92 days commencing from 30‑8‑1989 to 4‑12‑1989. Mr. Abdus Samad, learned counsel for the respondent, however, joined issues on this aspect of the matter, saying that the photostat copies of the extended time were just fraudulent. It is true that the appellant had come to the Mill area, but he had no business to be there.
11. His further contention was that even if it be assumed that he had been retained for the four additional days, that will not improve the case of the. appellant, in view of the principle expounded in Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1980 SC 323. He also referred to the case of Muhammad Yaqoob Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1990 SCMR 1539 wherein it was held that if the work was not of permanent nature, it is immaterial as to how long a worker's employment had continued. In the precedent case the termination had taken place after the worker had been on the job for full eight years. The case of Amin Fabrics v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1979 PLC 207 may also be relied upon.
12. As the law stands, the impugned order is not open to any exception. I will, therefore, uphold the same and dismiss the appeal.
H.B.T./2122/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.