S.M. MANSURUL HAQ Versus LEVER BROTHERS LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application for reinstatement under section 25‑A of the IRO. The circumstances which culminated in this appeal shorn of details, can be given in the following words:

The appellant was working with the respondent as a Trade Mark Investigator since 1966 in the erstwhile Province of East Pakistan. Sometimes in 1983 the respondents decided to abolish the job of the Trade Mark Investigator for Non‑management. They had sent a letter to the appellant that he had become surplus to the establishment, and though his services could be terminated, yet, as they put it "keeping in view your qualifications in the field as well as traditional generous policy of the Company we are not doing so. We are instead re‑designating you as "Sales Representative with effect from the date of the signing of this letter." The letter is dated the 26th of June, 1987.

2. The appellant made a representation, inter alia mentioning that what was happening was not the abolition of the post but its upgradation for which even applications for fresh recruitment had been invited through the Press. He therefore pressed his claim for the retention of his earlier job as upgraded, and in the course of the said representation also mentioned that he may not be very suitable as Sales Representative, looking to his aptitude or experience. On the 5th of October a letter was despatched by the respondents terminating the services of the appellant.

3. On the 15th of October, 1972 the appellant sent a grievance notice which was replied to, but as the same did not provide any satisfaction, he filed the petition.

4. The Labour Court dismissed the petition as no mala fide was involved and the appellant had spurned the offer made to him. This led to an appeal before the Tribunal which came to be allowed, with continuity of service as Trade Mark Investigator. There was a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant as such, but with only 50% back benefits. This order aggrieved both the parties, and they challenged it through writ petitions in the High Court.

5. Their Lordships reaching the conclusion that as they could neither uphold the order passed by the Labour Court, nor that of the Tribunal, remanded the case to this Tribunal "for reconsideration in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment". .

6. The Labour Court in its order had found that the appellant had outright rejected the alternate job of the Sales Representative which had been offered to him. There is however not a word that way to be found in the only communication from him and the same is on the record.

7. All that we find from the letter is that he was putting forward his claim for appointment in the upgraded job of the Trade Mark Investigator. There is nothing like refusal in the letter and therefore the callous termination of service is nothing but a promise honoured only in the breach. The display of a little more patience; would have avoided the travails that were to be befall the appellant. There is nothing on the record to show that his letter was considered by the establishment, or that he had been sent for, not to say of any further communication with him in writing or otherwise when the letter. of termination came to be despatched.

8. It is‑true that nobody in the establishment was nursing any grudge ~~against the appellant. May be that he was earlier considered and not found to be suitable for the upgraded post. The discretion was theirs, and there can be no interference with the same. But they owed it to themselves, to let the appellant know for well that if the offer was not accepted there had to be the parting of their ways. That was not done. The impugned order cannot therefore be maintained and is set aside,

9. The appellant has been in the wilderness for a number of years, for no fault of his own, and the blame squarely lies on the shoulders of the respondent for all that happened. Looking to the principles laid down in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1991 SCMR 2087, the appellant will be reinstated in service as Sales Representative within a month of the order, with full back benefits.

H.B.T./2144/Lb.S Appeal accepted.