1988 PLP 999 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 8th February, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 17-9-1986, passed by .the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievence petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman as a helper' for about 9 months and. all of a sudden his services were terminated without any reason, therefore, being aggrieved he filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that as the appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period not exceeding 9 months and that before expiry of the period his services were terminated without any bias or grudge. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievence petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.,

5. I have heared Mr. Gohar Iqbal, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rafat Usmani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position on record, it was not mentioned that the appellant had been appointed on probationary period and after its completion, he would be made permanent. There is nothing on record to establish that the appellant was appointed on a permanent post. It is also an admitted deposition that the appellant was not a permanent workman. Further, it is also an admitted position that a fake and forged document was attempted to be brought on record of the Learned Labour Court to establish that the appellant was appointed on a probationary period. I find that the signature of the appellant has miserably failed to also establish any bias or prejudice on the part of the respondent establishment. In view of the admitted position on behalf of the appellant himself and the documents brought on record as well as the legal aspect of the case, I am of the view that the appellant was purely a temporary Workman for a period of 9 months and his services were rightly terminated before expiry of the said period and in no way he could claim that after putting his service for more than 3 months, he became a permanent Workman,. The appellant had himself accepted the terms and conditions of his appointment at the time of his joining order, so, I would maintain the same.

6. For the reason stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1302/Lb. S. ???????? Appeal dismissed.