Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS Respondent: SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH
1988 P L C 482
1988 P L C 482
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and another
Versus
SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH
Appeals Nos.BR-363, 364 and 366 of 1987, decided on 8th December 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
---Ss.25-A & 39(2)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.12(3)- Termination of services of directly recruited Ticket Examiners of Road Transport Corporation allegedly in pursuance of Settlement--Settlement arrived at with Trade Union of Lahore Employees such settlement, held, was not binding upon employees of other Depots having separate Trade Union and not members of Lahore employees Union--Management, could if desired implement such decision as future policy to maintain uniformity but could not apply same over those already in service in other Depots--Termination order was not sustainable in absence of cogent explicit reasons hence rightly set aside by Labour Court.
Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Appellants.
Rana Muhammad Yaqoob for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th December, 1987.
JUDGMENT
The three appeals captioned above emerge from the orders dated 8-10-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and they were directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondents were directly appointed as ticket examiners on 1-1-1975, 23-12-1974 and 23-12-1974, respectively. Their services were terminated vide orders dated 19-4-1986, 28-4-1986 and 28-4-1986 respectively on the plea of implementation of the decision dated 22-1-1978 of learned Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore. The said Labour Court had in its decision dated 22-1-1978 directed that the persons who had been directly appointed as ticket examiners be terminated from service and the ones promoted from ex-cadre posts be reverted and all the vacancies be filled in by promotion from traffic cadre. The respondents were not party to the said decision. The settlement on the basis of which the decision dated 22-1-1978 was passed was between PRTC Employees Union, Lahore and the management, whereas Shabbir Hussain, respondent, was appointed at Lahore and Ayub Ali and Bashir Ahmad, respondents, at Multan.
The respondents deposed that in Multan there was a separate trade union. So far as Bahawalpur is concerned there was no depot there when Ayub Ali and Bashir Ahmad, respondents, were appointed. The argument has force that since the settlement was between trade union at Lahore and the management, it was not binding upon the respondents. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that section 39(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 states, that the settlement arrived at between the management and a trade union otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings shall be binding upon the parties to the agreement. It is not necessary to answer this question. Since the respondents were not members of the trade union which had entered into the settlement with the employer, the decision dated 22-1-1978 was not binding and only for the sake of uniformity of policy the appellants can act accordingly in future but since the direct appointment of the respondents was not hit by the settlement, they got a vested right which could not be defeated by merely adopting a uniform policy. If any vacancy falls vacant, the appellants may fill in the same by promotion but since the respondents were validly recruited orders of termination of services were not legal and have been rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. The orders of termination violate the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 also only for cogent reasons the services of a worker can be terminated. Since the decision dated 22-1-1978 was not applicable to the respondents, there was no cogent ground for the termination of their services.
3. As a result, all the three appeals fail and are dismissed.
A. E. /471/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.