1999 PLP 185 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 22‑A(8)(g) & 22‑D‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Employee who claimed to have attained status of permanent workman, had challenged his removal by verbal order of employer alleging same to be unfair labour practice of employer‑‑‑Evidence on record had shown that employee was appointed through a letter for fixed period of 60 days and his services were terminated through a written order within fixed period of 60 days‑‑‑Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission, had rightly held that employee had failed to establish that by operation of law he had attained status of permanent employee and that employee had failed to prove unfair labour practice against employer‑‑‑Order passed by Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission, could not be interfered with. Javed Iqbal for Appellant. Salim Baig for Respondent. Abdur Rehman has filed the titled appeal against the decision of Mr. Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai the then learned Member of N.I.R.C. dated 9‑9‑1996 whereby his petition was dismissed.

2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was employed as Air Condition Mechanic in August, 1994 without written appointment letter with promise that he would be regularised since the incumbent of that post, Soofi Akhtar was to be re‑designated. He continued in that capacity till a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 was filed on 23‑6‑1996 for seeking regularisation because the respondents failed to regularise the appellant. The petition was admitted and meanwhile the respondents were restrained from removing the appellant from service while the matter was sub judice, the respondents verbally terminated the appellant from service on 12‑7‑1996. Regarding para. 4 of the impugned order the learned counsel for the appellant contended that although certain documents in evidence were produced in the lower Court, but the Single Bench wrongly observed that there was no need to record evidence and failed to advert to the documents placed on record. He also argued that due to trade union activities of the appellant the management removed him from service. He had become permanent as the appellant had worked against a permanent post for more than two years. Relieving on 1997 PLC 446 he added that removal by verbal order was held to be illegal by a Divisional Bench of the Karachi High Court. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent's counsel that in view of insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the appeal stood abated. He further submitted that the appellant was appointed through a written letter dated 1‑3‑1996 for fixed period of 60 days and he was also terminated through a written order dated 25‑4‑1996, before stay order was granted by the Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission on 23‑6‑1996. Both the documents were placed on the lower file with written statement. The appellant filed contempt application before the Single Bench which was also dismissed on 19‑9‑1997 on the ground that the respondent already stood terminated before the grant of stay. The learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that the allegation of vague nature in respect of unfair labour practice were made and not proved through any evidence. Hence for all the above‑stated reason the impugned order was well founded and did not suffer from any defect. We have considered the arguments and perused the record. It is noticed that the appellant attached no documents with his petition in support of allegations made therein, specially in respect of alleged unfair labour practice. Subsequently, he filed application under section 151, C.P.C and certain documents were attached therewith to show that he had been performing duty during the months of April, May and June, 1979. The respondent however, denied correctness of those documents in their reply to the said application. With written statement filed earlier by the respondent copy of appointment letter, termination letter as well as the application made by the appellant on 29‑2‑1996 seeking employment, were attached. The wages sheet was also placed on record therewith. None of those documents were rebutted by the appellant through evidence. There is thus no proof on record in support of the contentions made by the appellant that he was appointed in August, 1994 and he continued in service till 1996 without any break in service. In such circumstances the Single Bench of the Commission rightly held that the appellant failed to establish that by operation of law, he had attained the status of permanent employee. He was also correct in holding that no unfair labour practice was proved. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this which is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./311/N.I.R.C. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.