EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION WORKSHOP MUGHALPURA DIVISION, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE vs JAMSHED IQBAL MIRZA and 2 others
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that upheld the reinstatement of the respondent, a work-charged employee, with full back benefits. The respondent had been employed on a purely temporary basis, with services terminable without notice or reason. Following the termination of his services due to a reduced workload, the respondent filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. While the Labour Court initially dismissed the petition, subsequent proceedings led to the respondent's reinstatement by the Labour Court, a decision affirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a temporary employee, whose services are terminable without notice or cause, is entitled to reinstatement and back benefits, or if the remedy is limited to one month's pay in lieu of notice. The Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contention regarding the limitation of relief to monetary compensation rather than reinstatement required further examination.
- Is a work-charged employee whose services are terminable without notice entitled to reinstatement and back benefits?
- Does the termination of a temporary employee without notice entitle the employee to relief beyond one month's pay in lieu of notice?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 17-6-1992 whereby his writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 4-6-1991 reinstating the respondent with all back benefits and that of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 20-7-1991 dismissing the appeal against the said order, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that respondent No, 1 was employed as Turner on work-charged basis on 7-6- 1987 in Irrigation Workshop Division, Moghalpura on purely temporary basis. The service was terminable at any time without notice or without assigning any reason. Due to less work load his services were terminated vide order dated 26-6-1988 as no more required. He filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Labour Court which was dismissed on 27-11-1990. He challenged the said order in appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal which was allowed. The case was remanded for fresh decision vide judgment dated 20-2-1991. In the second round the Labour Court allowed the grievance petition on 4-6-1991.
The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal which was dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on 20-7-1991. A writ petition led by the petitioner also failed vide order dated 17-8-1992.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was employed on purely temporary basis and his service was terminable at any time without assigning any reason. He submits that if it be conceded that the respondent's service was terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof as held by the Labour Appellate Tribunal even then the right to service could not be said to be guaranteed under the law and the only relief which he could get was one month's pay and not reinstatement with back benefits. The contention requires examination. Leave I A to appeal is, therefore, granted.