Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CHLORIDE PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI VS Respondent: ANWAR HUSSAIN
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Ghulam Rasool K. Sheikh Title: CHLORIDE PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs ANWAR HUSSAIN Case No.: Appeal No, KAR-524 of 1976 Date of Judgment:1977-05-09 Reported As: 1978 PLC 149 Result: Appeal allowed
Judgment DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Coutt ordering re-instatement of the respondent on an application made by him under section 25-A, I. R. 0. 2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant. His service was terminated by a letter dated 18th March 1976 on the ground that he was a temporary workman and his service was no longer required. After service of grievance notice he approached the Labour Cow!. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessm ent of the evidence, the Labour Court ordered re-instatement. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. 3. On perusal of the record and proceeding; and hearing the arguments I am unable to support the order of the Labour Court. It is clear from letter dated 18th March 1976 whereby the service of the appellant was terminated that he was a temporary workman and his service was no longer required. The respondent neither in the grievance notice nor in the application made under section 25-A, I. R. 0. Nor in the affidavit which was tendered in answer to the reply statement cared to refuta the statement made in the termination letter to the effect that he was a temporary workman. I repeatedly asked the learned counsel to point out whether there will any evidence to show that the respondent was a permanent workman but he failed to point out any such evidence. Even in the application made under section 25-A, L R. 0. It was not disclosed as to when he was appointed. The burden of proof that he was a permanent workman lay upon the respondent and he failed to discharge it. As already pointed out, he did not care to refute his statue as temporary workman as shown by tae appellant in the letter of
---
## Page 2
termination. The termination of the service of a temporary workman cannot be challenged. To this view of the matter the application made by the respondent under section 25-A, I. R. 0. Was not maintainable and the order of re-instatement cannot be allowed to stand. 4. In result I allow the appeal and Pet aside the impugned order. The application made under section 25-A, I. R. 0. Stands tismisse.