1989 PLP 46 (PLC)

Ahmad Raza Chowdhry for Appellant. M.K. Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th December, 1986. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 4‑9‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi~ whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was employed as an electrician vide order Ex. P‑1 dated 4‑12‑1979 by the Project Manager in compliance with the order of the General Manager, Mechanical Construction Project, Lahore for the duration of Simli Dam Project. He was promoted vide order dated 24‑5‑1981 Ex. P‑2 as Electrical Foreman Grade‑II by the Project Manager as decided by the General Manager. Vide order EX.P‑3 dated 10‑10‑1985 the services of the respondent were terminated by the Project Manager on the ground that the work of Simli Dam Project had been completed.

3. The learned lower Court has held that the respondent was employed not for Simli Dam Project since the appointment order was issued in compliance with the order of the General Manager, Lahore. The other reason given by the learned lower Court is that the question of promotion of the respondent too was decided by the General Manager, Lahore. The learned lower Court has lost sight of the fact that the appointment order Ex. P‑1 as well as the promotion order Ex.P‑2 is signed by the Project Manager and in both the documents the word `hereby' was used. It is thus clear that the respondent was taken in service and was promoted by the Project Manager. It appears that the General Manager was to be consulted according to some instructions for recruiting and promoting any person. If the respondent had been recruited and promoted by the General Manager, then both the orders Exs. P‑1 and P‑2 would have been signed and issued by the said authority and not by the Project Manager. In the appointment order it is clearly mentioned that the appointment of the respondent was for the duration of Simli Dam Project. It is thus abundantly clear that only for Simli Dam Project the respondent was taken in service. No doubt in the promotion order Ex.P‑2 the words `duration of Simli Dam Project' are not written but since initially the respondent was employed for Simli Dam Project and after promotion was not A sent to any other project, it is evident that the post of Electrical Foreman Grade 11 had fallen vacant in Simli Dam Project. The learned lower Court, therefore, has wrongly found that the respondent was employed and promoted not for Simli Dam Project.

4. However, the appellant failed to establish that at the time the services of the respondent were terminated, Simli Dam Project had been completed and there was no work. To prove that the work of Simli Dam Project had been completed, letter Ex.P‑1 .was produced but at the time it was exhibited in evidence on behalf of the respondent an objection was raised and without answering the objection the letter was exhibited in evidence. The objection was B that the author of the letter had not been examined. If no objection had been taken on behalf of the respondent, of course letter Ex.P‑1 could have been used but since timely objection was raised, it was necessary for the appellant to have called the author of Ex.P‑

1. This is a private document, therefore, without formal proof could not be tendered in evidence. The respondent in his statement deposed that his juniors were retained in service and this evidence was not rebutted.

5. As a result, there is no scope to set aside the impugned order. IC Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. M.Y.H/280/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.