Termination Simplicitor and Legal Requirements.
 |
خدمات کی سادہ برطرفی اور قانونی تقاضے
تمہیدی پس منظر
خدمات کی برطرفی کی نوعیت
قانونی تقاضوں کی وضاحت
وجوہات کی غیر وضاحت
شواہد ریکارڈ کرنے کی ضرورت کا سوال
نیشنل انڈسٹریل ریلیشنز کمیشن کا کردار
ہائی کورٹ کا حتمی نتیجہ
قانونی اہمیت
یہ کیس کویت ایئرویز کی جانب سے ایک درخواست پر مشتمل ہے
عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ متعلقہ قانون کے تحت تحریری طور پر واضح وجوہات فراہم کرنا ضروری ہے،
Must read Judgement
2024 P L C 30
[Islamabad High Court]
Before Saman Rafat Imtiaz, J
Messrs KUWAIT AIRWAYS COMPANY through Authorised Representative
Versus
FULL BENCH, NIRC and 2 others
Writ Petition No.3767 of 2022, decided on 23rd May, 2023.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---
----S.Os. 12 &15---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.33---Termination simplicitor---Allegation of misconduct, absence of---Re-instatement into service---Member-NIRC re-instated workman (lady/Security Assistant) into service with all back benefits by deciding her grievance petition---Petitioner / Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to assail the re-instatement order asserting that due to non-availability of the Respondent [Full Bench-NIRC],its appeal had not yet been fixed for hearing---Contention of the petitioner/company was that the Member-NIRC instead of passing an order on the preliminary objections or framing issues, directly passed the re-instatement order---Validity---Termination Letter showed that reason given for termination of Respondent /employee service was that her services were no longer required and there was also no dispute that one month's salary in lieu of notice was paid to the respondent/employee---Therefore, the petitioner relied upon the provisions of the S.O. 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, ('the Standing Orders 1968'), however, subsections (1) and (5) of S.O., 12 of the S.O., 1968 stipulated that termination on account of misconduct was to be carried out as prescribed in S.O. 15 and that termination for any reason other than misconduct required one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof---According to subsection (3) of S.O. 12 of the Standing Orders 1968, an order, in writing, explicitly stating the reasons for the action taken was necessary in all cases of termination, removal, retrenchment, discharge and dismissal---In the present case, the respondent/Member-NIRC had held that the reason given by the petitioner/company for termination of services of respondent /workman i.e. that her services were no longer required was not an explicit reason for termination of a permanent workman---Petitioner/company had failed to satisfy the High Court as to how such reason was clear, explicit and valid---No reason had been identified as to why the services were suddenly not required by the petitioner/company especially considering that the respondent/workman was employed as a Security Guard---Since the reason given for termination of services was itself lacking necessary explanation, it could not be considered valid, sufficient or explicit---There was also no force in the argument /contention of the petitioner that the Member-NIRC/respondent ought to have recorded evidence in order to determine whether the termination was termination simpliciter or otherwise---Petitioner's own stance was that it was a termination simpliciter which had been accepted by the Member-NIRC, therefore, recording of evidence would not change the outcome---Impugned judgment even showed that the arguments submitted were not in respect of preliminary objections but in fact addressed the merits of the case---No interference was warranted in the impugned order by the High Court---Constitutional petition filed was dismissed, in circumstances.
Allied Bank Limited v. Zulfiqar Ali Shah 2021 SCMR 1213 and Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited v. Full Bench N.I.R.C. and others 2019 PLC (Labour) 86 ref.
Nestle Pakistan Limited v. Member, NIRC and others 2021 PLC 56; Head Human Resource Management MCB Bank, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Shahzad and others 2012 PLC 114; Muhammad Iqbal v. Regional Business Head and others 2011 PLC 292 and Administrator Zila Council, Sahiwal v. Arif Hussain and others 2011 SCMR 1082 distinguished.
Barrister M. Hassan Alam for Petitioner.
Respondent No.3 Ex-parte