Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE VS Respondent: NAZIR AHMAD
1993 P L C 573
1993 P L C 573
[Lahore High Court]
Before Sheikh Abdul Mannan, J
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE
versus
NAZIR AHMAD and others
W.P. No. 1978 of 1976, heard on 27th February, 1993.
Industrial dispute‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Both Courts below on basis of evidence on record concurrently found that termination of employee was illegal‑‑‑Concurrent reasoned finding of Courts below was unexceptionable and could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Imdad Ali v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1975 Kar. 288 ref.
Syed Iqbal Haider Zaidi for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th February, 1993.
JUDGMENT
This Constitutional petition is directed against the orders dated 3‑3‑1976 and 22‑4‑1976 of the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. III and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore respectively reinstating the respondent.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent was appointed as District Conductor on probation but his services were terminated by District Manager on 7th August, 1975 on account of unsatisfactory work. This led to the filing of an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging the termination and vide order dated 3‑3‑1976 the application was accepted by the Labour Court and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated. Appeal against this order was filed by the petitioner Punjab Road Transport Board which was rejected on 24‑4‑1976 by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. On query it is stated that the respondent is still in service of the petitioner.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Board that the respondent being on probation his services could be terminated within 3 months and therefore, there was no justification for the Labour Court to have reinstated him and consequently the appeal filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected. Neither the respondent nor his learned counsel is present.
4. It. emerges from the record that the respondent was appointed on probation but according to the rules it has been held by the Labour Court that in case of probation monthly reports were to be submitted but in the present case the same was done after every 20 days and that this was not explained by the Yard Master who appeared against the respondent in the Labour Court. On this short ground the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal as the reports were to be submitted after every month and not after 20 days. This aspect 6f the case has been discussed in detail by the Labour Court by which the application of the respondent was accepted and he was reinstated with back benefits. The Appellate Tribunal also was of the same view as that of the Labour Court and further added that the Labour ‑Court is entitled to go into the facts of the case in order to' check against arbitrary and capricious dismissal and reliance was placed on Imdad Ali v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another (PLD 1975 Kar. 288). Both the Courts below are of the view that the termination is illegal for the reasons stated in the impugned orders which appear to be unexceptionable. It is admitted that the respondent is still working in the service of the petitioner which means that by this time he has more than 18 years of service.
For reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
H.B.T./P‑57/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.