1999 PLP 202 (PLC)

Appeal No. FD‑261 of 1992, decided on 4th June, 1998. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI1I of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os. 1(1) & 12‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Employee whose services were terminated without an order in writing and without observance of other legal formalities had been appointed against leave vacancy‑‑‑Express stipulation embodied in appointment letter of employee was that his services would automatically come to an end on resumption of duty by other employee at whose place he was employed for the time being against leave vacancy‑‑‑On rejoining duty by other employee who had gone on leave and at whose place employee was appointed, employee could not insist on continuance in. service and plead that he could avail of benefit accruable to a workman in normal case‑‑‑Person who was employed on contractual basis and had not attained status of permanent employee, could not be permitted to wriggle out of his own clear commitment‑‑‑Employee whose services automatically came to an end on rejoining duty by other employee at whose place he was temporarily appointed against leave vacancy, could not claim that he had attained status of permanent employee and that he could not be removed from service except by following prescribed procedure. Ali Akbar Qureshi for Appellants. Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. The appeal is directed against the decision dated 17‑6‑1992, having been rendered by Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sheikh, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Faisalabad, whereby he had accepted the grievance petition, filed by Shakeel Ahmad Shahid under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969,

2. The respondent had been employed by the F.D.A. as Junior Clerk, in the Directorate of Estate Management, in place of Mr. Abdul Hamid Chohan, Senior Clerk, who had been sanctioned earned leave (ex‑Pakistan), for full one year, on 7‑8‑1990, under which arrangement Mr. Chohan had relinquished the charge and submitted his departure report on 17‑8‑1990 (A.N.). The order of appointment dated 18‑8‑1990 is Exh. R‑

3. The learned lower Court, has, however, utterly failed to comprehend the import of the appointment order, and has harped on the tune that the official, having remained in F.D.As service for a period exceeding the statutory limit of nine months, must be deemed to have acquired status of a permanent workman, by operation of law. Had he been appointed against a vacancy in any other capacity, provisional, stopgap, temporarily, work‑charged, he would have become a permanent worker, who could not be ousted from service, without an order in writing, and without observance of other legal formalities, as service of show‑cause notice/charge‑sheet, and holding of a departmental enquiry against him; but the express stipulation embodied in his original letter of appointment was to the effect that he had been offered the post against the leave vacancy and further that services would automatically come to an end, or stand terminated, on resumption of duty by Mr. Abdul Hamid Chohan, Senior Clerk. This clear condition is contained in the appointment letter Exh. R‑

3. No matter, Mr. Chohan's extraordinary leave had been extended by 15 days, from 18‑8‑1991 to 1‑9‑1991 (Exh. R‑4), this incidence would not have made any difference. Mr. Chohan had rejoined duty on 2‑9‑1991 (F.N.) (Exh. R‑5). How could, then, Mr. Shakeel insist on continuance in service and plead that he could avail of the benefit accruable to a workman, in normal course, and how could he invoke the aid of the Labour laws, by having recourse to a Labour Court? The Labour Court had not at all adverted to the requisite understanding or undertaking embodied in the respondent's appointment letter dated 18‑8‑1990 (R‑3), and oblivious of the unambiguous import and intent of the same, and the nature of the assignment, the respondent was holding, had jumped to the conclusion, by following his familiar pattern that the official had attained permanence in service, and he could not be removed from service except by following the prescribed procedure. It must be taken to be a contractual employment, and the official could not be permitted to wriggle out of his own clear commitment.

3. I am not prepared to affirm or endorse the impugned decision, which must not be permitted to hold the field. It is hereby vacated, and the F.D.As. appeal, being wholly sound, is accepted, with of course no order as to costs. H.B.T./937/Lb.P Appeal accepted.