1994 PLP 225 (PLC)

The petitioner on 2.5‑11‑1989 was appointed as an A.P.P. Correspondent with his posting at Sukkur, purely on temporary basis, "initially for three months". His services were extended upto 30‑4‑1990, and thereafter again upto 30th June, 1990, but he was also advised that he would appear in the test/interview in response to the A.P.P. advertisement appearing in the newspapers in the first week of 1990. By order dated 30th June, 1990 his services came to be terminated "due to his totally unsatisfactory performance". The letter went on to say that since he had appeared in the written test for the recruitment of a trainee Sub‑Editor/Reporter on 21/22, January, 1990" he is allowed to work on a remuneration of Rs.1,750 per month for one month upto 31‑7‑1990". In this context it might be mentioned that previous to this order he was getting a remuneration of Rs.2,000 per month.

2. On the 14th July, 1990, he received a letter extending his service for 2 months i.e. unto 30‑9‑1990. However, on the 20th of August, 1990 he received an office order which was in the following terms:‑‑ "In pursuance of the Cabinet Decisions No. 20/CM/90, dated 13‑8‑1990, received under Ministry of I&B's Letter No.5(18)/90 Coord., dated 18‑8‑1990, the irregular services of Mr. Rehmatullah Somroo, Correspondent, A.P.P. Sukkur are hereby terminated with immediate effect. (2) This issues with the approval of the Director‑General, Associated Press of Pakistan. . (Sd.) (ZULFIQAR AHMED), Manager (Admn. & Personnel)"

3. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner served‑a grievance notice dated 30th of October, 1990 and later filed the petition.

4. The respondents jointly filed a written reply resisting the petition. It was said that when the petitioner had applied for the post he was 50 years old whereas the prescribed age limit was only 28 years. It was further said that the appointment was because of political pressure and without going through the prescribed procedure. Reference was also made to his unsatisfactory performance. It was also said that he had remained in the employment of the respondent for a period of 10 months but against a managerial 'and supervisory post and therefore the petition was not, competent.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and Khawaja Javed Ahmed who had succeeded him appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it, found that the petitioner had attained the status of a permanent workman as he had served (or more than 8 months continuously and "it is deemed over age of the applicant and his appointment without holding test/interview were condoned". It therefore, allowed the petition but without back benefits, as the petitioner in his cross -examination had admitted that he‑ was working as a Correspondent for the daily Dawn though he had not mentioned how much remuneration he was getting.

7. The evidence of Khawaja Javed Ahmed shows that there was only one mechanic and a peon working apart from himself in the office. The record also clearly shows that the A.C.R. recorded by the respondent and some office orders were in the capacity of an acting Station Manager, a post which was lying vacant, and not as a Correspondent. The respondent had also mentioned the nature of his duties in detail. He had also stated that the mechanic and the peon were under the supervision and control of the Station Manager and was therefore, rightly held to be a workman. It is true that two letters of Mr. Aftab Shaban in the capacity of a Minister and as a Chief Minister of Sindh were brought on the record but there is nothing to show that any show‑cause notice, or inquiry had been held against him, and on the showing of Khawaja Javed Ahmed he was in service for a period of 10 months, without even a day's break. He could not therefore, be removed the way it came about.

8. The back benefits were denied because the Labour Court found that it was not mentioned in the petition or in the affidavit‑in‑evidence that he was jobless. That is not entirely true. However, the letter of Mr. Aftab Shaban clearly indicates that even at the time of his appointment he was working as a Correspondent of the daily Dawn, and on his own showing‑he was working in that capacity even after the removal from his service. He was, therefore, not jobless. Otherwise, too he had not filed an appeal or cross objection against this part of the order.

9. In the result the order is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. H.B.T./2260/Lb.S. Appeal dismissed.