2010 PLP 415 (PLC)

JUSTICE (Retd.) ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, (CHAIRMAN).

Applicants Aftab Memon, Divisional Superintendent, Imran Faisal, Assistant Executive Engineer and Imran, Permanent Way Inspector are called absent. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants is also not present. While Mr. Hussain Bux Saryo, learned Counsel for the appellants/applicants was present and heard on 8-3-2010. Respondents namely Jumma, Ibrahim, Abdul Aziz, Umer Khan, Haji Chang, Ali Muhammad, Manzoor, Haji, Muhammad Siddique, Ghulam Akbar are present through their Counsel Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Awan (they were exempted by this Tribunal from personal attendance). Respondent Nazar Muhammad is not present, as he is reported to be dead. Mr. Ejaz A. Awan, learned Counsel has brought to my notice that this appeal arise from the order dated 7th August, 2009 passed by the learned Labour Court .No. VI, Hyderabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents employees under section 41 of the I.R.A. 2008 were allowed and the management of Pakistan Railways were ordered to prepare and maintain the service book of the railways employees, to pay the annual increment and wages for which the permanent employee is entitled and to pay all the full back benefits for which a permanent employee is entitled. The facts in short are that the respondent workers were appointed as Gangmen in year 1992. They continued on duty and are still performing their duties, they had been medically examined, but their service books were not maintained by the Railway establishment and are still treated as a temporary employees as their nature of job is to maintain the railway track, which is a permanent job. The cross-examination of the appellant No.3, Muhammad Ismail, Permanent Way Inspector is very much relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:-- "It is correct to suggest that Gangman is a permanent job in Railway Department. The Gangman repairs and maintains the Railway track. It is correct to suggest that applicants are doing the same work for the last 18 years. It is correct to suggest that service books of Gangman are maintained by AEN. It is correct to suggest that applicants were appointed as Gangmen after medical fitness. It is correct that the names of the applicants are appearing on Master Sheet along with permanent employees. It is correct that the service books of all the applicants have not been still prepared. It is correct to suggest that applicants are working continuously since their appointment and there is no break. It is correct to suggest that applicants have not been paid any facilities except monthly salary. It is correct that AEN is competent authority to appoint or to terminate any one. It is correct that Divisional Superintendent supervised the whole 'Division." Admittedly no increment is given to them and they are still drawing the salary which was given to them on their initial appointment. It is also admitted fact that respondents are being working as Gangmen since their appointment and their service books are also not prepared due to reason that they are treated temporary employees. In these circumstances, the case of respondents are to be considered. In a case reported in PLD 1996 SC

610. Executive Engineer Central Division, Pak. P.W.D. Quetta v: Abdul Aziz and others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the nature of the work for which a person is employed is of a permanent nature, then he becomes permanent upon expiry of period of nine months mentioned in terms of Schedule Para 1(b) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Provided he is covered by the definition of "worker" as is given in section 2(i) of the said Ordinance. Regarding back benefits. If the -employee is entitled to service benefits there is no justification to withhold the service benefits awarded by the court as was held in a case of Muhammad Ahmed Butt v. Ghulam Murtaza Hashmi, reported in 1999 SCMR 2301. The contentions raised by the both the learned counsel for parties have been taken into consideration and in view of the citations referred to by Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Awan, learned counsel for the respondents and in my mind it is clear that the respondents were in fact permanent employees, as respondents were doing work of Gangmen and without work of Gangmen, it is not possible to keep the railway track in use by the Railways and, therefore, they were treated as permanent workers as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Consequently, I hold that the respondents be treated as permanent employees of the Pakistan Railways and are, therefore, entitled to all back benefits. Under the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed and the revision application is not maintainable, hence impugned order dated 7-8-2009 is maintained which should be acted upon and implemented. H.B.T./7/SLT Appeal dismissed.