1993 PLP 823 (PLC(CS))

S.M. Kohistani for Appellants. S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. DECISION These are five separate appeals, filed jointly by a number of appellants, against a common impugned order, dated 7‑2‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI, at Karachi, who had partly allowed five separate joint grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. As a common point of law is involved in all these five appeals, therefore, I would also dispose of these five appeals by this single decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants claimed to have been working in the respondent Mills since a long time with effect from different dates, in different departments and in different categories of jobs on different salaries of daily wages. The appellants further claimed that when they demanded the respondent‑Mills to issue them appointment orders, to release the arrears of their wages in view of continuity of their respective services with further entitlement of the benefits and privileges of a permanent workman against the permanent vacancy on which they claimed to have been working. Further, the claim of the appellants was that in the month of September, 1985, their resignations were demanded on an impression that the respective departments of the respondent‑Mills are being handed over on contract system to the Contractor to which they refused to do so. The appellants further claimed that as most of them were illiterate, therefore, thumb‑impressions of some of them were taken on blank papers misrepresenting the facts that they were being issued appointment letters and the arrears of their salaries were being released. The claim of the appellants was further that no double rate weekly off with pay or any other leave or bonus was granted to them, therefore, being dissatisfied with this attitude of the respondent‑Mills, they had preferred their respective joint grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. 3. The respondent‑Mills resisted all these petitions solely on the ground that all the appellants were employed on daily wage system against the casual work, therefore, they had no vested right to maintain their grievance petition which were liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeals. ‑ 5. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent‑Mills and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. In all these appeals only one point is involved whether the appellants who were working on daily wages basis since a long time and they had respective completed more than 89 days of service or had worked for more. than 183 days against the work of permanent nature to last for more than nine months, were legally entitled to be permanent workmen with all rights or privileges, or not? The status of a workman is classified under section 2(g) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The category of a temporary workman is also defined in section 12 which covers monthly‑rated, weekly‑rated and piece rated and section 3 provides that the conditions of the employment of workman, subject to the provisions of the Ordinance be regulated in accordance with the Standing Orders Ordinance. It is an admitted position that the appellants were working in the respondent‑Mills since long time against a work of permanent nature, therefore, they were entitled to be taken on respective permanent cadre with continuity of services and the entitlement of all rights and privileges. It is a settled principle that for permanent employment, there is always a selection of employees. There is a contradictory evidence on behalf of the respondent‑Mills with regard to the issuance of appointment letters to some of the appellants and the break in their services. A worker cannot assume the permanent status by virtue of this appointment or with the long continuity of service unless he appears before the Selection Committee and qualifies the requirements and this Selection Committee has to consider the length of service, his work against the permanent post, experience and the fitness. The respondent‑Mills has failed to produce any authentic document in support of any of their contentions. However, I am of the view that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and the learned Labour Court has very correctly discussed all issues in its impugned order which needs not to be interfered with on the other hand, Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent‑Mills has reiterated his arguments which he had submitted before the learned Labour Court. However, I see no force in the arguments of Mr. S.M. Yaqoob. 6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned 'order and would maintain the same. The present five appeals are accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./1167/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.