ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus RIAZ SHAHID

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal ordering the renstatement of the petitioner has arisen succinctly stated, are as follows:‑‑

1. The petitioner was working as a sampleman with the appellant from 1‑1‑1987 and his services came to be terminated verbally on 26‑4‑1991. On the 2nd of May, 1991 the grievance notice was sent to the respondent which was duly replied to in which it was said that it was the petitioner who had deserted his work. He was called back to report on duty lest legal action be taken against him. As the grievance of the petitioner remained un-redressed he had filed the petition.

2. The Written Reply with all its erasures and interpolations, remained unverified. It was however in line with the reply to the grievance notice and need not be reiterated.

3. The petitioner was his own witness and Anis Umar Nagda, Production Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it allowed the petition with full back benefits.

5. Nothing of any consequence could be elicited from the cross examination of the respondent, and Nagda admitted therein that no charge- sheet had been issued or enquiry had ‑been conducted against the respondent. There was no termination letter either.

6. If the respondent was really not turning up, the normal course would have been to proceed against him for absence and dismiss him from service after a due enquiry. Nothing of this sort was done. There was not even a letter despatched to the respondent to report for duty. There is therefore no reason, not to accept the version of the respondent who has been so diligently pursuing the proceeding, and once the appellant had shown during the arguments their willingness to take him back, had reported for duty on the 9th of December, 1992 last alongwith the Director of the Company from the Court.

7. The circumstances clearly make out that for reasons which need not be simulated, the respondent had been thrown out of job and now allowed to rejoin. Be that as it was the appellant who had terminated the services of the respondent unlawfully and therefore the impugned order is not open to any exception.

8. As a result the appeal is dismissed. The respondent will be entitled to the back benefits from 26‑4‑3.991 up to 9th December, 1992 when he rejoined the appellant.

Orders accordingly.

H.B.T./2180/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.