1984 PLP 1091 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 38‑Appeal‑Respondent raising such cross‑objections as not specifically raised before Labour Court‑Such objections, held, could not be raised in answer to appeal. Zafar Saleem for Appellant. A. R. Sheikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th September, 1983. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 8th March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was appointed vide Exh. R‑1 on 16th December, 1979 for a fixed period upto 20th May, 1980. Vide Exh. P‑2 his services were terminated for the reason that he had been appointed upto 20th May, 1980 which period had expired. The learned counsel for the appel lant has argued that in Wage Commission Award there is no provision of temporary post, therefore, every appointment is to be regarded as permanent. There is no force in these arguments. No definition of various services is givens in Wage Commission Award and provision is made how probationers and other employees are 'to be dealt with. Para. 233 deals with the probationers and paras. 234 and 236 deal with the employees who have crossed the probationary period. Para. 258 deals with miscon duct and lays down the procedure of punishing them. This means that the employees employed for a fixed period were not given any protection. This is, therefore, wrong that every appointment shall be taken as perma nent. Since the appellant was employed upto 20th May, 1980 and accepted service on this condition he had no guaranteed right to overstay in service beyond 20th May, 1980, without the consent of the respondent. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Exh. P‑2 termination order was signed by an incompetent officer i. e. Staff Officer. Exh. P‑4 is reply to grievance notice. It was produced by the appellant. The signatures appearing on this document fully tally with the signatures appearing on termination letter Exh. P‑

2. RW‑1 Iqbal Ahmad, Officer, Zonal Office, has said that Exh, P‑2 bears his signatures. There appears to be some mistake. It really bears the signature of P. W.‑

1. As mentioned above the signatures appearing on Exh. P‑4 which are not disputed tally with the signatures appearing on Exh. P‑

2. The designation is given as Zonal Area Chief on Exh. P‑4 as well as Exh. P‑2 and Zonal Area Chief admittedly is the competent authority. So, 'this is wrong that termination order was passed by incompetent authority.

3. Appointment letter is Exh. R‑

1. It has been argued by the learned counsel that it was prepared after wards. This is wrong. Exh. R‑1 bear the signatures of the appellants in token of its receipt. His signatures on Exh. R‑1 tally with the un-disputed signatures appearing on the grievance petition. According to Exh. R‑1, the appellant was appointed for a fixed period upto 20th May, 1980 which falls short of probationary period, so para 234 does not apply. On the expiry of the period for which the appellant was employed, he was rightly terminated vide Exh. P‑

2. R. W.‑l stated that the appellant was employed temporarily in a leave vacancy. Needless to say that leave always is upto a fixed period. So, the original employee may have resumed duty on 20th May, 1980. This is not the case of the appellant that the original employee did not join on or after 20th May, 1980.

4. Certain cross objections have also been raised by the respondent but since they were not specifically raised before the learned lower Court in the written statement, they could not be for the first time raised in answer to the appeal.

5. As a result of what has been said above. I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. A. E. Appeal dismissed.