1983 PLP 265 (PLC)

The P.R.T.B. has appealed against the decision dated 26‑6‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The case of the appellant as set out in the written statement filed in the learned lower Court in reply to the grievance petition of the respondent is teat the respondent was appointed as conductor for one month only in December, 1980 and was extended on the expiry of the period for one month till 19‑11‑1981 when he was finally terminated in view of the fleet position. The case of the respondent was that he was initially taken in service in 1975 and was terminated in March, 1980 but was re‑employed in December, 1980 and was by verbal order terminated on 29‑11‑1981 without any reason. These facts were stated by the respondent in his statement recorded by the learned lower court. He also said therein that he did not receive any monthly extension order. On Behalf of the appellant no oral evidence was produced. However, appointment order dated 16‑12‑1980 Exh. R‑1 and monthly extension orders Exhs. R‑2 to R‑8 have been brought on the record. The appointment order Exh. R‑1 betrays the scheme of the appellant. It says that seven posts of conductors fell vacant on account of the retirement and medically unfitness of conductors. Needless to say that permanent employees are retired and not temporary. Temporary employees are always terminated. So the vacancy against which the respondent was appointed on 16‑12‑.1980 was permanent. Since the vacancy lasted for about eleven months (more than nine months) for this reason also it was, in view of Standing Order t of the W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a permanent vacancy. Recording monthly appointment 'orders on the close of every month or their preparation afterwards in back dates was only to dodge the respondent and has no legal effect As the vacancy was permanent, the respondent became automatically permanent under Standing Order 1 on the expiry of three months continuous and satisfactory service.

3. The oral order of termination was in violation of the provision of Standing Order 12 (3) which provides that services of a workman l,, can be terminated by means of a written order containing explicit reasons.

4. No other point has been argued. The respondent was thus rightly re‑instated in service with, back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.