| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 1577 1985 SLD 1577 1985 PLC 119 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-214 of 1983, decided on 21st March, 1984.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. FD-214 of 1983, decided on 21st March, 1984.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
VS
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., FAISALABAD
Law:
Section:
First Wage Commission Award---- --- Paras. 233, 234 a 250--Bank employee--Termination of services--Bank has no arbitrary powers--Reasons for termination essentially to be indicated--Messenger after service of 2 years terminated stating that services no longer required--Post continuing--Contention that Head Office did not approve appointment--Retaining employee in service for two years, in circumstances, held, implied approval of appointment and termination without cogent reasons - not Sustainable--Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re-instatement with back benefits--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A & 38 (3). Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1984. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 9-3-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service. 2. The appellant was employed as a messenger on 12-6-1980. On 29-7-1982 his services were terminated as no longer required, vide order Exh.P-2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in para. 234 of the first Wage Commission Award, it is not mentioned that giving of reasons for terminating the services of an employee is necessary. I do not find any force in this argument. The Wage Commission does not appear to be of the opinion that bank management should have arbitrary powers of termination of services of their employees. After reading paras. 233 and 234 together, it becomes clear that giving of reasons for termination is necessary. According to para. 233 either the period of probation is to be extended or the services of the employees can be terminated if he has during the period of probation failed to show satisfactory progress. If period is extended, naturally reasons for so doing will be given. Likewise if the employee is terminated during the period of probation reasons will be given that his work is not satisfactory. If the intention of the Wage Commission had been that without any reason the services…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492