1979 PLP 152 (PLC)

S. 25‑A‑Re‑instatement sought on plea that petitioner being a permanent workman could not be removed without show cause etc.‑Termination letter indicating that he was temporary and that his services were no longer required‑Temporary status indicated in termination letter neither refuted in grievance notice nor in petition to Labour Court nor in affidavit tendered in answer to reply state ment‑‑Onus of proof that he was a permanent workman lay upon petitioner who failed to discharge same‑‑Petition under S.25‑A, in circumstances, held, not maintainable as termination of temporary service cannot be challenged. Ghulam Hasan for Appellant. Qamar Abdal for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th May 1977. This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re instatement of the respondent on an application made by him under sec tion 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance. 2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant. His service was terminated by a letter dated 18th March, 1976 on the ground that he was a temporary workman and his service was no longer required. After service of grievance notice he approached the Labour Court. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence, the Labour Court ordered re‑instatement. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. 3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to support the order of the Labour Court. It is clear from letter dated 18th March, 1976 whereby the service of the appellant was terminated that he was a temporary workman and his service was no longer required. The respondent neither in the grievance notice nor in the application made under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance nor in the affidavit which was tendered in answer to the reply statement cared to refute the statement made in the termination letter to the effect that he was a temporary workman. I repeatedly asked the learned counsel to point out whether there was any evidence to show that‑the respondent was a permanent workman but he failed to point out any such evidence. Even in the application made under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance it was not disclosed as to when he was appointed. The burden of proof that he was a permanent workman lay upon the respondent and he failed to discharge it. As already pointed out, lie did not care to refute his status as temporary workman as shown by the appellant in the letter of termination. The termination of the service of temporary workman cannot be challenged. In this view of the matter the application made by the respondent under section 25‑A, Industrial Relation Ordinance was not maintainable and the order of re‑instatement cannot be allowed to stand. 4. In result I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The application made under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance stands dismissed.