MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ KHAN OADRI Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal against the order passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. 4, Karachi, rejecting a petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, for reinstatement.

2. The appellant was working in Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation as a Glizzer. His services were terminated on 16‑9‑1985. His grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was allowed by the Labour Court and he was reinstated in service. The appellant then sent another grievance notice to the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation that since he had completed nine months his services be made permanent. The appellant thereafter filed another petition before the Labour Court in respect of this new grievance. Pending the proceedings the services of the appellant were terminated by an order dated 27‑6‑1991. The appellant then filed a third petition in the Labour Court against his termination. The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that i although the appellant's services were terminated under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance no reasons for the termination were given though this was a mandatory requirement under Standing Order 12(3) far all the workers including' temporary or Katcha workers. Under Standing Order 12(3), the services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. The learned counsel has pointed out that this mandatory. provision of stating the reasons is applicable in case of any category of workmen.

3. It has next been argued that the appellant has become a permanent worker automatically since he has worked for 183 days in the year.

4. The learned counsel for the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation has, on the other hand, pointed out that the appellant was daily payment of wages category of worker and neither a temporary nor a permanent worker, that he was employed for a particular number of days and on expiry of his appointed time his services were terminated under Standing Order 12(3) by an order in writing giving reasons. This order reads as under:

"The temporary job for which you were appointed on daily wages basis has been completed.

Your services are, therefore, terminated by the competent Authority with effect from the close of work on 8‑6‑1991.

You are hereby advised to collect your full and final settlement dues, if any, from our department as soon as possible."

There is endorsement on this letter that the appellant Shah Nawaz has refused to take delivery of this letter. This endorsement is dated 1‑7‑1991.

5. As regards the contention of the appellant's counsel that the appellant has worked for 183 days in the year with breaks, the learned counsel for the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation has pointed out that this is bare statement of the appellant himself, which has been vehemently denied by tire Steel Mills. He was a daily wages worker appointed for a fixed period for a jot, and his services were terminated when that job was completed.‑

6. The learned Labour Court also found all the issues against the appellant and in favour of the Pakistan Steel Mills after recording evidence. The applicant was a temporary workman on daily wages. It had not been proved that he had acquired the status of a permanent worker. His services had been terminated in accordance with Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

7. I can see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court on these issues. The order of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

H.B.T./2446/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.