MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LYALLPUR

DECISION

This is an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, against an order, dated 7-8-1975, passed by the Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lyallpur, whereby the application of the appellant for re-instatement was dismissed.

2.The appellant, Muhammad Sharif after completing his training in the School for driving was appointed as a driver on 17-12-1974. On 8-1-1975 while driving at the route Lahore-Lyallpur, his bus met with an accident. The Assistant Traffic Manager conducted an inquiry at the spot. Ho made the following report:-

3.On the above report the Traffic Manager, recommended :-

4.The District Manager, agreed with the above reports and terminated the services of the appellant on 31-1-1975. His order was that the services of the appellant were terminated within probation period due to his unsatisfactory work.

5.The dismissal order was challenged by the appellant in the Junior Labour Court on the ground that no show-cause notice was served on him and no inquiry was conducted against him. The learned Junior Labour Court relying on a previous judgment of this Court (Appeal No. 103/75), decided on 6-6-1975, held that the appellant was a probationer, he had not completed a period of three months' service and as such the employer was competent to terminate his services on the ground that his work was unsatisfactory.

6.In my previous decision dated 6.6-1975 it was remarked by me that in the case of a probationer, the employer must state that his perfor mance was unsatisfactory and if this reason was not given in the order of termination then the termination would be illegal. In the latter part of the same decision the case of a probationer was further discussed. Relying on a Supreme Court authority AT. Siddique Javed v. Government of Pakistan (P L D 1974 S C 393) it was further held that if there was a charge of misconduct it was incumbent upon the employer to hold the inquiry and to give a finding if the employee was guilty of misconduct. If such an inquiry has not been held the services of a probationer cannot be terminated merely stating in the order that the services were unsatisfactory.

7.There must be some data before the employer on the basis of which he can, say that the services of the probationer were unsatisfactory. If this data amounts to charge of misconduct then the employer must bold an inquiry into the allegation. In the present case, the appellant had caused accident. Two of the officers of the respondent him guilty for negligence and over-speeding and on this basis his services were terminated. Obviously it was a charge of misconduct, so the services could not be terminated without holding an inquiry in this case. Supreme Court authority is applicable on all fours on the facts of this case. I hold that the order of termination was illegal as no inquiry was held by the respondent.

8.The appeal is accepted and the respondent is directed to re-instate the appellant with back benefits.