1989 PLP 604 (PLC)

‑‑‑S. 1(4)(c) & S.O.1‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIIi of 1969), S. 25‑A‑ Permanent workman‑‑Work‑charged employee of Irrigation Department governed by statutory rules‑‑Rules not providing for treating work‑charged employee as permanent by lapse of time‑‑Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 not applicable‑‑Employee, held, had no right guaranteed by law, award or settlement to claim being permanent after rendering service for several years on work charged basis hence could not invoke S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to make grievance petition before Labour Court. Mian Muhammad Hussain for Appellants. Sh. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1989. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. Both the appeals emerge from the decision dated 23‑6‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha Camp at Jhang whereby their grievance petitions for being made permanent have been dismissed. Respondent No. 2 has not appeared in spite of being served with notice, therefore, the appeals are being decided against him ex parte.

2. So far as Appeal No. 1 is concerned, Ghulam Muhammad is a confirmed Baildar but is working as work‑charged mate. Muhammad Rafique is also work charged Bafdar. Out of the appellants of Appeal No. 2, appellants Nos. 1 to 5 are work‑charged Baildars, appellants Nos. 6 to 8 are work‑charged Mate but permanent Baildars and the remaining two are work‑charged employees. The prayer made in both the grievance petitions and the appeals are to issue direction to the respondents to make them permanent from work‑charged. Needless to say that an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be made successfully only if there is any right guaranteed by any law, award or settlement. No question of settlement or award arises in this case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellants remained employed for several years without any break, their work‑charged employment, automatically stood changed to permanent under Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and thus they have a right guaranteed by the said Ordinance. The argument has no force. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 does not apply to Government servants inasmuch as both the conditions given in proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance stands satisfied in their cases. Since the appellants are the employees of the Government, they are Government servants and thus are governed by Government Servants Rules of 1960 which are statutory rules. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any rule from the Rules of 1960 according to which work‑charged employment can be treated as permanent employment by lapse of time. Thus the employees who were employed on work‑charged basis would continue to remain as such till they are made permanent by the respondents. However, the employees who are permanent Baildars would continue to remain as such even though they may have been promoted to higher posts as work‑charged.

3. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any defect in the impugned decision, therefore, both the appeals fail and are consequently dismissed. A.E./654/Lb. P Appeals dismissed.