1983 PLP 262 (PLC)

This appeal arises from the decision dated 9‑11‑1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated with back benefits.

2. The facts are that the respondent was employed on contract basis for two years vide order Exh. D‑1 in April, 1980. His services were terminated vide order Exh. P‑2 on 13th of May, 1979. According to the terms and conditions of service either party could terminate the services on one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice pay. By terminating the services of the respondent, this condition was not fulfilled by the appellant. The respondent challenged the order of termina tion before the learned lower Court on the ground that he being a permanent employee, without giving any reasons he could not be termi nated.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since only for two years the respondent was employed he was not permanent. It was also contended by the appellant before the learned lower Court that the respondent was not covered by the definition of workman. So far as the point whether the respondent is a workman or not is concerned, it was found by the learned lower Court in the previous petition for re‑instatement that he was a workman. The said order is dated 9‑5‑1981 passed in Appeal No. 654/79‑Pb. The copy of the order is Exh. P‑

1. An appeal was preferred, but it was disposed of as being infructuous. this is not the case of the appellant that after the previous decision the nature of the duties of the respondent was changed. Since the previous decision is between the same parties and the same point was involved it was not necessary to prove it again. The rule of res judicata applies. The respondent, therefore, has been, rightly declared as a workman by the learned lower Court. The respondent in his statement said that the post was permanent and that three or four persons were junior to him in the cadre of AWM, namely Mohammad Sharif and Javaid Iqbal. No rebuttal was produced by the appellant. It, therefore, stands proved that post was permanent. Since the respondent served for more than three months he became permanent on the expiry of the period of probation. In the written statement the only stand taken is that the appointment of the respondent was for two years on contractual basis, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable. No other ground is given for the' termination of service. In order of termination no explicit ground is given except this that the period had expired.

4. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly ordered to be re‑instated. There being no force in the appeal, the same is dis missed. Appeal dismissed.