1999 PLP 176 (PLC)

By this judgment I shall be disposing of the two appeals, with the above title, facts and legal propositions involved being common. The grievance petitions, filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by the employees had been accepted on 1‑8‑1994 by the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, then, presided over by Mr. Masood Akhtar Khan. The appeals have been preferred by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshops Division, Mughalpura, Lahore.

2. The petitioners before the Labour Court had taken up the plea that they had been in service for a number of years and that their services had abruptly been terminated in July‑August, 1990. They had earlier also filed petitions for regularisation of their services, but the same had been dismissed by the learned Labour Court on 28‑7‑1990. This made the 'Authorities' revengeful against them, so that some of them were removed from service, on the following day, i.e. 29‑7‑1990, and such orders were passed against others a few days afterwards on 11‑8‑1990. Order of termination of services of the employees were challenged by them in the subsequent grievance petitions. As such, according to them, the subsequent petitions were not barred, and the rule of res judicata was not attracted, as causes of action urged and the prayers made in the previous and the subsequent petitions were different. This contention of the grievance petitioners was found to be correct, and rightly so, by the learned Court below.

3. In contesting the grievance petitions, learned counsel for the respondents before the Labour Court had, besides the aforesaid objections, raised a number of other contentions. It is maintained here as well that the respondents had been recruited originally as work‑charged employees, for a specified project, and separate funds had been allocated. There was no seniority list and no sanctioned strength, maintained separately for this class of employees. While appointing them, no assurance had been held out that their services would be regularised. They used to be appointed from time to time, and even though the length of their service stretched over a few years, this incidence would not militate against their status, being treated as that of work‑charged appointees. Reliance has been placed on 1992 PLC 924.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondents has contended that the argument advanced on the appellant to the effect that it was a specific or limited or temporary project for which these persons had been recruited, and separate funds had been set apart for the project, does not have in support any documentary proof. The recruitments were made in March, 1987; and when the Labour Court declined to treat them as regular employees, on having been approached by these persons, for the purpose, they were ousted from service, without having been served with show‑cause notices or charge‑sheets,, and no valid reasons having been assigned for dispensation of their services (on issuance of final orders) in writing. They used to get consolidated pay on monthly basis, and they were also entitled to avail of weekly holidays, and even other holidays, granted to regular employees on certain festivals. Certain people were recruited afterwards, and although junior, they are still on the rolls of the establishment. By nature of their duties the appellants had a legitimate right to claim status as workmen, under the Factories Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. Even if they were treated as work‑charged Government servants, the 'Authorities' had to observe certain formalities, under the Departmental Rules or the P.W.D. Code, which require that one month's notice, or in lieu thereof one month's salary, should have been given to them before they could be asked to quit.

5. Learned counsel has cited in support of his contentions a number of unreported cases, having been decided in similar circumstances by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, as also by the Superior Courts. This includes a judgment announced on 5‑5‑1992 by Mr. Justice Akhtar Hasan, dismissing Writ Petition No.6475 of 1991, having been filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Division, Mughalpura, against reinstatement with back benefits of one Jamshed Iqbal Mirza. The latest authority on the subject, which is very well‑reasoned and exhaustive, has been pronounced by the august apex Court of the country and has been reported as PLD 1995 SC

1. When the project, for execution of which ostensibly certain persons have been temporarily recruited remains unspecified, and is for no limited period, salary continues to be enhanced and no deductions from pay are made for Fridays and other holidays, the appointees will be treated as permanent workers and not work‑charged workmen. One who has been engaged for doing a job, lasting for more than nine months, and has satisfactorily completed probationary period of three months, has to be treated as a permanent worker, as contemplated by the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The contention put forth by the employer that the employees initially recruited on work‑charged basis could not be taken to be permanent employees, irrespective of the fact that they had continued to work in the Department for a period of 2 to 7 years, was spurned as untenable in the judgment aforesaid. Such employees would acquire permanent status by operation of law, and their services cannot be terminated except in accordance with law and without observing the requisite formalities. 'Authorities' cannot be allowed to act contrary to law and rules.

6. The respondents according to the 'Authorities' had been employed under a contract and their services were to be governed by the terms of the contract. No such order has, however, been produced and the original letters of appointment have also not been placed on record, with a view to enable this Tribunal to become aware of the conditions of service. Rana Arshad Ali, Labour Clerk, R.W.1, has, in his statement, tendered certain documents, Exhs. R‑1 to R‑26, purporting to be the appointment letters and termination orders. These were, however, not the original orders, and could well be manufactured by the Department afterwards, it has been maintained, and rightly so, by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to R.W.1, the posts against which the respondents have been working still exist, and there has been no break in service. The respondents have continuously been serving over a long time. They were not served with notices, before their ouster from service. It is conceded by R.W.1 that some people had been employed even after termination of services of the respondents, who having put in service over a long time and acquired good deal of experience, had a right to be retained, particularly when the 'Authorities' stood in need of services of other people and had actually employed a number of them for execution of certain projects or for doing work of permanent nature, in the Workshop, which had been in existence ever since pre‑partition days. The reason given for dispensing with the services of the respondents, the same being that their services were no longer required, did not manifestly hold good, in the stated circumstances.

7. For all these reasons, the orders bringing to end the services of the respondents could not be endorsed, and no fault can be found with the decision delivered by the learned Labour Court. Both the appeals are bereft of any merit and are hereby dismissed with costs. For the intervening period, between the termination of services of the respondents and their reinstatement in service, having occurred in actual practice, the respondents may be awarded half of the back benefits, as they had not practically' rendered services in the Workshop, or the Department, where they were employed. Actually, it is learnt that, the respondents were able to stage come‑back in service and have been there, almost incessantly, but they are allegedly not being paid their wages. This will be too much on the part of the 'Authorities', who must be prepared to part with the emoluments, in favour of the respondents. without any amount of delay. H.B.T./926/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.