1993 PLP 853 (PLC(CS))

S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December 1987. DECISION This is an appeal, purported to have been filed jointly by 12 appellants against an impugned order, dated 7‑2‑1987 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi who had allowed the grievance petition of the appellants directing their reinstatement in service without back benefits. It would be evident from the title of the memo of appeal that appellants, mentioned at Serial Nos. 6, 7 and 12 did not sign the present memo of appeal, therefore, this appeal would be decided with regard to 9 appellants, out of the above 12 appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants claimed to have been employed in the respondent mills having been appointed against permanent vacancies and had served the establishment for more than 89 days, but, they were neither regularized in their employments nor they were being given all the benefits of permanent workmen and on their demand to do the needful, they were removed from the employments on 3‑10‑1985. Being aggrieved, the appellants submitted grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 for their reinstatement in service with full back benefits. 3. The respondent mills resisted the petition on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation and also, as they were appointed for casual work and no right accrued to them as well as they have been appointed by a Contractor, therefore, they were not entitled to maintain grievance petition, which was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order directing only the reinstatement in service of the appellants and disallowing them the back benefits. Hence, the present joint appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Mills and have also carefully persued the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well? reasoned as far as the nature of employment and the entitlement of the appellants thereto is concerned. I, therefore, find it needless to repeat them here, and would maintain the same findings, as had been given by the learned Labour Court. However, Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellants has contended that the learned Labour Court was not correct in law in disallowing the back benefits to the appellants in view of the facts that it has held that the action of the respondent Mills was illegal as it had failed to produce service records of the appellants to show that they were casual worker having been appointed on a casual work of temporary nature for a specific period of time. He submitted that arriving at this final conclusion, the appellants were legally entitled to get back benefits, besides their reinstatement in service. I see much force in these contentions of Mr. S. M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellants. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Yaqoob the learned Advocate for the respondent mills had reiterated his arguments, which he had already submitted before the learned Labour Court. I, therefore, hold f that the appellants are entitled to be reinstated in service with 30% (thirty per cent.) back benefits and the impugned order is hereby modified accordingly. 6. For the reasons discussed by me above I would maintain the impugned order, only with a modification that they be given 30% (thirty per cent.) back benefits alongwith reinstatement in service forthwith. As, appellants, named at serial Nos. 6, 7 and 12 are not signatories to the present appeal, therefore, they would not be entitled to these back benefits. M.Y.H./1164/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal partly accepted.