1997 PLP 517 (PLC)

Ch. Muhammad Idrees for Appellant. Shaukat Hussain Baloch for Respondents date of hearing: 14th May, 1996. By this judgment, I shall be disposing of Appeals Nos. SGA‑501 and 502 of 1993, both having been preferred on 28‑10‑1993 by the Executive Engineer, Sargodha Drainage Division, Sargodha, respondents in the former appeal being Muhammad Munir, Muhammad Nawaz, Manzoor Hussain and Muhammad Ashraf, latter appeal having one Manzoor Ahmad as the sole respondent. Facts and legal propositions involved are similar.

2. Muhammad Munir etc. were appointed as Beldars and Manzoor Ahmad was appointed as Mate in the year 1989‑

90. They were removed from service on 12th and 13th of August, 1992, by a verbal order conveyed to them on 13‑8‑1992. They challenged the orders of termination of their services, by filing grievance petitions, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No.5, Sargodha.

3. The appellant as respondent before the lower Court took up the plea that the appointments were on ad hoc basis made against purely temporary posts and retention of incumbents of the posts was dependant on budgetary sanction which was made on yearly basis. When no sanction, for the next year came, the services of these employees automatically came to an end.

4. The learned Labour Court is of the view that status of the respondents being workmen having not been disputed, they are entitled to protection of Labour Laws and they can enforce their rights by invoking jurisdiction of the Labour Court concerned, and the very fact that sanction was accorded and funds were provided from year to year indicated that the appointments had been made against permanent vacancies and the appointees could not be relieved of their duties arbitrarily and summarily in the manner it was done. They had to be served with show‑cause notices and charge -sheets and made to face regular enquiries, before their services could be dispensed with. Legally there was no room for removal of these persons from their service by verbal orders and without observing the requirements laid down by law. The impugned orders of termination of services of the respondents were set aside by the learned Court below. I have given ray careful consideration to the points raised in appeal, by both sides. Actually, conclusive determination of the issues involved is not required, reason being that the respondents have been taken back in service, and the appellant is no longer interested in the respondents' removal from service. The appeals obviously have become infructuous and the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly exhibited lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals further. In view of this development, as also on merits, the appeals are liable to dismissal; and I would order accordingly. The impugned decisions rendered by the learned Labour Court are maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./838/Lb.P Appear dismissed.