IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.PNo. D - 2241 of 2015

Date           ORDER WITHSIGNATUREOF JUDGE

Date of hearing   :         12.08.2015

Mr. Syed Zafar Ali Shah Advocate for petitioner

ORDER

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ,J:-Through the captioned Constitution petition, petitioner Ali SherManganhar has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A)     To direct the respondent No. 2 to 5 to produce the copy of any letter, mail, or any show cause notice through which petitioner was removed from employment/ service because petitioner was forcibly, illegally and unlawfully without any show cause or written letter/order, removed from service with verbal order, without giving legal benefit as per contract.

B)      To direct the respondent No.6 to take departmental action against respondent No.2 & 3 as per rule of law &pay the salary to petitioner till final disposal of this petition.

C)      To direct the respondent No.4 to 6 to restore the service of petitioner on its same position because petitioner without any written order illegally removed from service by respondent No.2 to 4.

D)      To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper according to law.”

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was inducted in service by the respondents as “Godown Chowkidar” and his contract of employment was extended from time to time, however, on 04.02.2015, respondent No.2 removed him from services verbally and illegally. He further contended that the petitioner is a low paid employee of the respondents, therefore, they be directed to produce copy of the termination order of the petitioner and he may be restored in service on same terms and conditions.

3.      Perusal of material available on record and consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner emanate that petitioner was employed as GodownChowkidar by the respondent Bank on 15.10.1991. Subsequently, vide contract dated 27.04.2006, petitioner was offered by the respondentsfor employment as“General Services” on contract basis and he continuously remained in service with respondents. It is further averred that vide letter dated 11.12.2006, the respondent No.5 issued a circular addressed to all the Staff Members, Collateral Services Limited, Sindh Province, for their registration under Social Security Scheme and requiring them to fill a proforma alongwith 03 passport size photographs and copy of CNIC.Consequently,the petitioner also filled the said required proforma for his registration with Social Security Scheme Sindh.The copies of the documents available at pages No.9 to 29 of this file reflect that petitioner remained in continuous service of the respondent Bankin “General Services” on contract basis. However, the service of petitioner was terminated verbally by the respondent No.2 on 04.02.2015 without issuing any written letter for termination of his services nor his outstanding dues were paid.

4.      It is significant to mention that services/duties assigned to the petitioner fall within the definition of a “Workman” as such it was incumbent upon the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned forum by filing a grievance application after issuance of grievance notice.Undoubtedly, respondents’ organization is trans-provincial and petitioner has to seek proper remedy by filing appropriate proceedings before the concerned NIRC. Moreover, learned counsel for petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 24.03.2015, prior to the filing of instant petition, which has served the very purpose of legal requirement of issuance of grievance notice, that petitioner has approached the respondents for redressal of his grievances and it is for the worker to serve the grievance notice by himself or through his counsel.

5.      The work/duty assigned to the petitioner is permanent in nature which is established by the factum of continuous extension of contracts of service by the respondents since 15.10.1991, therefore, respondents could not terminate service of petitioner verbally. The unblemished continuous contractual service of the petitioner for 24 years without any discontinuity and registration with SESSI, has also   strengthen the plea that service of petitioner is of a permanent nature and respondents were bound to regularize the service of the petitioner but same was not done which emanate thedeviation from the relevant laws on the part of  respondents, therefore, while deciding the such cases, the Court has to examine judiciously the entire conduct and demeanors of the employer.

6.      It is well settled that services of a temporary workman can be terminated or dispensed with without assigning any reason when it was found that either work for which he was employed had been completed or that the post for which he was employed was no longer required to be continued. It is worthwhile to mention that in present case, the termination was not fulfilling the conditions of Standing Order 12(3) i.e. payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice and statement of reasons for termination of service. Indeed, petitioner was employed temporarily as Godown Chowkidar, but said post neither had been abolished nor the said work was completed but on the contrary petitioner remained in continuous service, therefore, the uninterrupted continuity of his service for about 24 years could not be said to be a temporary workman. Undeniably, respondents had not issued any letter in favour of petitioner as permanent workman during the ear of his long service,but considering permanent nature of service of petitioner, the respondent No.2 was legally bound to issue a written letter for termination of his services along with payment of one month’s salary at the time of termination of his service which had not been done by the respondents. 

7.      Considering the facts and circumstances referred supra, instant petition stands dismissed in limine being not maintainable under the law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the competent forum for the redressal of his grievance within 21 days after passing of this order and limitation will not come in the way.

JUDGE

19.8.2015

JUDGE