MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Versus M/S SHEZ N INTERNATIONAL LTD.

ORDER

This is an application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.. 1969 filed by Muhammad Ishaq against M; s Shezan International Ltd. for reinstatement with full back benefits.

2. The applicant's case is that he is a permanent workman working in the establishment of respondents M/s. Shezan International Ltd. as Doorman (Guard at the gate) since August 135. It is pleaded that on 1‑8‑1987, the applicant reported for duty as usual to Mr. Saifee Chowdhry who informed him that his services were no more required for which no reasons were assigned. The applicant's termination was not by any written order nor any reason thereof was communicated to him. On 2‑8‑1987, the applicant sent a grievance notice to the respondent and requested for reinstatement but the grievance notice was not responded nor the applicant was reinstated; hence the present grievance petition was filed.

3. The respondents have contested the grievance petition and filed their reply statement pleading that the applicant was not employed as a permanent workman. The services of the applicant were terminated by an order in writing which contained the reasons for his termination but the applicant refused to receive the said letter. No other reason for his termination was furnished by the respondents.

4. In support of his contention, the applicant has filed his affidavit deposing all the above facts. The respondent and their learned counsel have remained absent and they have not cross‑examined the applicant. Their side has also been closed. The applicant's evidence has not been challenged nor rebutted. The applicant has deposed in his affidavit dated 3‑11‑1987 that he is a permanent workman in the establishment of respondents doing the job of Doorman (gatekeeper) since August 1985: His services were terminated on 1‑8‑1987 without assigning any reason thereof and without giving any order in writing to the applicant. The respondents have not specifically given any reason for termination of the applicant in their reply statement nor they have, stated as to by what reasons the applicant was not a permanent workman. There is no reason to disbelieve the applicant's contention in the light of his statement.

5. For all the above reasons, I allow the grievance petition arid hereby direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant forthwith with all back benefits.

A. E. /1123/Lb.S Petition allowed