1988 PLP 839 (PLC)

Applicants were admittedly appointed as Apprentice Foremen from 27‑1‑1983 for a period of 3 years and so this period expired on 26‑1‑1986. After the expiry of this agreed period the applicants were allowed to work as permanent workmen from 27‑1‑1986 and so they continued to perform their duties upto 31‑3‑1987. However, they were, all of a sudden terminated with effect from 1‑4‑1987 without any written order or reasons whatsoever. Since the applicants claimed themselves to have acquired the status of permanent workmen and since they were governed by the provisions of S.O. Ordinance, they served grievance notices on 16‑4‑1987 and it having been rejected by letter dated 30‑4‑1987, they ,have filed the present petitions for their respective reinstatements with consequential benefits. In the reply statement, the only plea which has been advanced on behalf of the respondent is that the period of apprenticeship was extended upto 31‑3‑1987 and since the respondent was not legally obliged to absorb these applicants after their training and since the Ministry of Production had imposed a complete ban on fresh appointments, the applicants were rightly terminated. Since all these cases arise out of a common factual and legal position, by consent of the parties hereto all the cases were consolidated by order dated 13‑9‑1987. Accordingly, only applicant Ghulam Rasool was examined on behalf of all the applicants in support of their applications, while Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Deputy Manager, was tendered in evidence on behalf of the respondent. After evidence, I have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmad, representative for the applicants, and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, counsel for the respondent. I have also examined the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the applicants were engaged as Apprentices in January 1983 for a period of 3 years and this period expired on 26‑1‑1986. It is also an undisputed fact that the applicants had served the respondent upto 31‑3‑87 and so the applicants continued only as Apprentices throughout. Accordingly, they are not covered by the provisions of S.O. Ordinance 1968 nor there existed any relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the applicants and so they cannot maintain the present petitions. Naturally, this plea has to be established by the respondent itself and so I would examine if this plea has at all been substantiated. According to the. respondent, the period of training was extended by office orders dated 22‑2‑1986 and 1‑4‑1986. Both these letters appear to have been issued by Deputy Manager (Administration) of the respondent but admittedly none of these letters was given to the applicants and further that these letters do not indicate that this extension was made after the approval of the competent authority. Mr. Soomro submitted that this extension was duly notified to the applicants but he could not prove this intimation to the applicants. The solitary witness of the respondent has also admitted in his cross?examination that they have no proof about the issuance of such letters to the applicants or to show that this extension was approved by the competent authority. Besides this, I find that this extension was also unlawful and violative of the provisions of Apprenticeship Ordinance of 1962 and Rules framed thereunder. As per Rule 19 of Apprenticeship Rules 1966 the duration of apprenticeship is to be specified in the apprenticeship contract and if such period is to be extended, it can be done only with the approval of the competent authority and further that even such extension shall in no case be more than 1/4th of the original duration of apprenticeship. As already stated above, no approval of the 'competent authority was obtained or proved by the respondent and so such an extension as claimed by the respondent is of no legal value. Besides this, this so‑called extension is also violative of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules referred to above inasmuch as the extension could not exceed 9 months because the training period was only 36 months. It has been contended by Mr. Bashir that in fact no Foreman can be appointed as trainee or apprentice under the Apprenticeship Ordinance of 1962. On going through the evidence on record as also the various provisions of Apprenticeship Ordinance I feel that the applicants were in fact never appointed as Apprentices under the Ordinance of 1962 though they may have been engaged as trainees on a particular job. If any person is to be appointed as apprentice, an Apprenticeship Contract is to be executed in accordance with Rule 18 of Apprenticeship Rules of 1966 and this agreement has to be registered with the competent authority. If the appointment of any apprentice is not made in accordance with the Rules of 1966 and further that the contract is not registered with the competent authority, such a trainee shall not be governed by the provisions of Apprenticeship Ordinance of 1962 and shall be dealt with under the ordinary laws of land. In these cases the solitary witness of the respondent has admitted that the respondent has no proof with it to show that these applicants were permitted to be engaged as apprentices by the competent authority or their contract of apprenticeship was ever registered by the said authority. No other evidence whatsoever has been led by the respondent to show that the appointment of these applicants as apprentices was ever approved and registered by the competent authority. This being the factual and legal position, it cannot be argued on behalf of the respondent that the applicants were in fact apprentices under Apprenticeship Ordinance of 1962 or their training was extended upto 31‑3‑1987 in accordance with law. Accordingly, the applicants having worked continuously for more than 4 years and even for more than one year after the expiry of so called apprenticeship period, have acquired the status of permanent workmen and so their services could not have been dispensed with in contravention of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance of 1968. It has been contended by Mr. Soomro that no relationship existed in between the parties hereto. This submission of Mr. Soomro is misconcieved inasmuch as documents brought on record more particularly R/1, R/2 and Exs.A/4 to A/9, prove that not only the so‑called extension was made by the respondent itself. and under its own authority but the applicants were also appointed and also regularly paid like workers of the respondent. The pay slips A/4 to A/9 also show that the applicants were never given any stipend but they were always paid salaries like other workers of the respondent. These slips show basic salary and other relevant allowances as has been admitted by the solitary witness of the respondent. This solitary witness has also admitted that the applicants had no hire or fire power or had no authority to take even disciplinary action against any worker. This evidence thus proved that the applicants were employed by the respondent only as ordinary workmen in the respondent factory and had performed their duties as permanent workmen. In view of the above, these applications are allowed, and they are directed to be reinstated in service forthwith with consequential benefits. A.E./1130/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Applications allowed