1995 PLP 617 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). S.Os. 1 & 12(3)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑ Employee was appointed as a temporary worker and was not a "Badli worker" appointed in place of some permanent worker‑‑‑Appointment letter showed that job for which employee was engaged, was likely to last for about three months‑‑‑Employee in the first instance was engaged for a period of three months, but that period .was extended from month to month and finally his services were terminated after about seven months from his original appointment in writing‑‑‑In order of termination of employee which was in ,Writing, it was clearly mentioned that since employee was appointed on temporary basis, his services were no more required‑‑‑Order of termination, thus was valid and legal and since employee was appointed purely for completion of some extra work which had been finished, employer was not required to continue his service under any law. Muhammad Humayun for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1995. This appeal is directed against the decision of IIIrd Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with all the back benefits. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Humayun on behalf of A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., that the respondent was appointed as a temporary, worker on his own application which clearly mentioned that an appointment of temporary nature was vacant and he was applying for the same. The appointment order dated 21‑4‑1991 also shows that the employment was essentially of temporary nature likely to be finished any time before 31‑7‑1991. He was engaged on daily wages at the rate of Rs.65 per day. This appointment letter shows that the job foi which he was engaged was likely to last till 31‑7‑1.99.1. 1t shows that he was engaged in the first instance for a period of about three months. Then this period was being extended from month to month and finally it was extended up to 19th December, 1991 but his services were terminated on 28‑11‑1991 and this order was served on the respondent on 28‑11‑1991 at 4‑30 p.m. This order was in writing and mentioned the reason that the work being of temporary nature. he was no longer required.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that the nature of employment of the respondent was purely temporary and it continued to be temporary even under the Standing Orders Ordinance. That he was not a Badli worker r Anointed in place of some permanent worker. The number of days for which he worked even if they exceeded 183 days will not help the respondent under schedule Standing Order 1(b) because he was not a Badli worker. That any worker's service could be terminated simpliciter under section 12(3) of the Standing Orders. In this case, order of termination was in writing mentioned the reason that since he was appointed as a temporary!,, employee his services were no longer required, they were being terminated. That the order of termination was therefore valid and legal and since he was appointed purely for completion of some extra work which had been finished, the appellant company was not required to continue his service under any law.

3. The respondent and his Advocate have absented themselves on the last several hearings. They are no longer interested in this case, the appeal is accordingly decided in their absence. The order of the Labour Court holding the respondent to be a permanent worker is hereby set. aside and the appeal is allowed. The back benefits deposited by the appellant company may be refunded to them. The respondent is no ‑longer in the employment of the appellant company. H.B.T./2466/Lb.S Appeal allowed.