Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZOR ENGINEERS VS Respondent: ABDUL GHANI AND OTHERSHonorable Justice Rai Abdur Razzaque KhanWasim Sajjad,Raja Abdul Rashid
1976 P L C 309
1976 P L C 309
[Labour Court Punjab]
Present: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer
ZOR ENGINEERS
Versus
ABDUL GHANI AND OTHERS
Appeal No. 373 of 1974, decided on 14th January 1975.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-----
---- S. O. 15(4)-Termination of service of probationers on ground of"' being not up to standard-Termination order indicating that "services are no more required"-Contention that ground of termination "not up to standard" amounted to misconduct hence enquiry procedure of S. O. 15(4) should have been followed, in circumstances, rejected Remark that work is unsatisfactory-Does not put any stigma in getting service elsewhere and does not require enquiry procedure.
Wasim Sajjad for Appellant.
Raja Abdul Rashid for Respondent.
ORDER
This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 14-10-74 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the respondent under section 25-A. Petition was accepted by the impugned order, hence the Management has come in appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that respondents were employed on 23-7-74, as Carpenters and their services were dismissed on 19-8-74, as their services were alleged to be no more required Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that respondents were probationers and their services could very well be terminated by giving explicit reasons. Exhibit R. E. is a termination certificate given to the respondents with the remarks that their services are no more required.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged and has drawn my attention to Exh. R. A. and Exh. R. B. letters issued to the respondent and the reason therein is that respondents' services era not up to the standard required by the company. Learned counsel for the respondents has stressed vehemently that this amounts to misconduct for which there should have been an enquiry and after enquiry respondents should have been dealt with accord ing to the result of the enquiry. The remarks to the effect that work is unsatisfactory does not require any enquiry and it does not put any stigma on the respondents to get service any where else. It has been held in so many authorities. I therefore do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and this is more particularly, the service certi ficates which have been issued to the respondents do not mention these remarks.
5. For the foregoing discussion, I am constrained to set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court and accept the appeal of the Management.