1989 PLP 319 (PLC)

Bashir Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1988. This is an appeal against an order, dated 16-4-1987, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad has allowed the 3 grievance petitions of the respondents filed under section 3-A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. The admitted facts of the case arc that the respondents were employed as Field Helpers by the appellants in November, 1985, and, thereafter their services were terminated on 8-5-1980. After serving grievance notices upon the appellants, the respondents filed 3 grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court, which were consolidated and disposed of by a single order. The appellants resisted the petitions on the ground that the respondents were temporary workers on daily wages, specifically employed on temporary project which had been discontinued, therefore, they have not acquired the right of permanent workmen.

3. I have heard Mr. Races M. Mushtaq, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the respondents.

4. The facts of the cases are not disputed. The only question that requires consideration is whether the respondents were temporary workmen or had acquired the right of permanent workmen. The appellants have mainly relied upon Exh. R-2 which according to them was appointment order. The letter, however, shows that it is a letter assigning the duties and not the appointment letter. It does not show that the respondents were appointed on temporary project or their appointments were temporary. The mere fact that they were assigned duties to work in the "Supervised Cultivation Scheme" would not necessarily convert them into temporary employees. The witness of the appellants, namely, Lt.-Col .S.M. Rata, Manager Administration had admitted in his cross- examination that the respondents were working in the Cane Department. It is not the case of the appellants that the Cane Department was a temporary department likely to be finished within 9 months. It is further admitted that though the respondents were daily wageworkers, but were paid wages on monthly basis. It is also admitted that the written termination orders were not issued to them at the time of termination, but, they were orally informed and that it was also notified on the Notice Board. This evidence of the solitary witness of the appellants clearly shows that the respondents were employed in department of Cane by the appellants, which is not alleged to be of temporary nature. Furthermore, it shows that they worked for more than 3 months, that they were paid on monthly basis and that their services were terminated by oral orders. In view of the evidence that the respondents had worked for more than 3 months, they had acquired rights of permanent workmen. The termination by oral order of the services of the respondents was in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial' Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and was pbviously illegal. Any subsequent rectification of this illegal order by issuance of written order, would be of no avail unless it is shown that after termination of services oral order, the respondents are reinstated and then their services were terminated by written order. Such is not the case of the appellants. Furthermore, the termination of services on the ground that they were temporary workmen against the job on which they were employed and which has teen discontinued is also of no avail in view of the fact that they had acquired the right of permanent workmen.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. A.E./1351/Lb. S Appeal dismissed,