Pakistan Case LawKHOSH NAZAR Versus MESSRS EAST PAKISTAN ENTERPRISES LTD.
This is an appeal filed against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, which allowed the respondent employee's grievance petition and directed his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The core legal questions involved the limitation and maintainability of the grievance notice following an unanswered departmental appeal, and the lawfulness of a termination order purportedly passed on the ground of retrenchment without explicit reasons. The tribunal held that since the employer informed the employee that his departmental appeal was under scrutiny and never communicated a final decision, the grievance notice and petition were well within time and maintainable. Furthermore, a termination order based merely on retrenchment without assigning explicit reasons violates the statutory requirements. The tribunal dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Labour Court, directing the immediate reinstatement of the respondent with full back benefits. The court laid down the principle that a grievance notice and petition remain within time when a departmental appeal is kept pending under scrutiny without a final decision being communicated to the employee, and that a termination order without explicit reasons is unlawful under the relevant labour laws.
- Whether a grievance notice and petition are maintainable when a departmental appeal remains pending without a final decision communicated to the employee?
- Is a termination order based on retrenchment lawful if it does not assign explicit reasons?
- Whether an employee is entitled to reinstatement with back benefits upon the setting aside of an unlawful termination order?
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 29-6-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VII , Sukkur , who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Mahar Zaman , under section 25-A, I.R.0 . 1969, directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits.
2.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Electrical charge-man on 28-12-1967, originally with Agricultural Development Corporation and on its dissolution, his services were transferred to the Agricultural Engineering Department where he was permanently working till 8-11-1983 when his services were terminated without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved with this termination order, the respondent filed a departmental appeal on 19-11-1983 but, as he received no reply to his departmental appeal, therefore, on 24-3-1985, the respondent served a grievance notice upon the appellants and then submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3.The appellants resisted the petition on two grounds, firstly, that as the respondent was wrongly regularised as mechanic, therefore, on representation from certain workers, he was restored to his contingency post of chargeman ; and secondly, that on account of retrenchment, his services were terminated. So his petition was not maintainable.
4.Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has allowed the petition of the respondent, hence this appeal.
5.I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan , the learned Advocate for the respondent, while none is present on behalf of the appellants. I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. There is an admitted position, on record that the respondent had submitted a departmental appeal before the appellants and in reply to this appeal, he received a communication informing him that his appeal was under scrutiny and the result would be communicated to him very soon and thereafter, admittedly there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent was given final decision by the appellants on his departmental appeal. He has placed reliance, in this behalf on the authorities, reported in 1985 P L C 137 and at page 700. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held the grievance notice and the petition of the respondent well within time and thus maintainable.
6.As regards to the merits of the case, it was contended by Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan , the learned Advocate for the respondent that the so-called letter of termination of service of the respondent on the ground of retrenchment only without assigning any explicit reason, is not a lawful order in the eyes of law, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In this behalf he has placed reliance on the C provision of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and also on the authorities reported in 1982 P L C 87 of 1978 LSLR at page 61. In view of the factual position and the legal aspects of the case, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly set aside the impugned termination order and allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits.
7.For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of the back benefits deposited by the appellants before this Tribunal be paid to the respondent, Mehar Zaman after due verification.
A.E . /1059/ Lb.S Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
Judges on this bench
- Ali Nawaz Budhani721 judgments