2026 PLP 162 (PLC)

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, CHAIRMAN.

Through this appeal filed under Section 58 of the IRA, 2012 the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 passed by learned Single Bench in case No.4B(01)/2022, wherein the learned Member while deciding the grievance petition filed by the respondents has held that the petitioners (respondents) have completed probationary period of three months and are working on permanent nature of jobs for the last so many years therefore, those who are still in service have attained the status of permanent workmen by operation of law. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed instant appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Bench contrary to law and facts has passed the impugned order, thus not sustainable in the eye of law; that the learned Single Bench has failed to consider the contentions put forth by the appellant, documents placed on record and has passed the impugned order; that the respondents were appointed on daily wages/work charge basis and performing their duties as daily wage employees since 2012; that in the appointment letters it has been clearly mentioned that their employment was purely on temporary basis for the period of 89 days; that the contract were extended from time to time; that the appellants were appointed on different projects temporarily and on completion of 89 days span they have been re-appointed after gap of several days, thus cannot claim continuous service; that by virtue of impugned order the National ex-chequer has been un-necessary overburdened as the salaries benefits attached therewith paid to the respondents are being arranged from curtailment of development budgets and shifting from the other heads; that the MS Wing of Establishment Division carried out extensive study of work-charged employees of this Department upon the instruction of the Prime Minister, whereby it was ascertained that a number of employees are surplus, thus the appointments on daily wage basis are totally uncalled for as the executive Engineer was not competent to appoint daily wages employees. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of her arguments has relied on case law i.e. 2020 SCMR 2068 and 2020 SCMR 507.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents have been appointed against permanent nature of jabs on daily wage basis; that the posts occupied by the respondents were/are permanent in nature and in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 continued for more than nine months, thus by operation of law they become permanent employees of the appellant establishment; that it is the constant view of the superior courts that motive behind artificial break in continuation of service after 89 days is a pretext to avoid the regularization, which is against the spirit of law. The learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that the appeal may be dismissed and the impugned order may be maintained.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite length and perused the record and proceedings of the case file, the case law referred by the learned counsel for the appellant has also been taken into consideration. It is an admitted position that the respondents were hired by the appellant in the year 2012, and serving the appellant establishment for years and at this stage taking the stand by the appellant that the respondent did not fulfill the criteria for the post is not good standing. The respondent's employment is not denied by the appellant from the date as alleged by the respondents, the main issue in the case is the entitlement of the respondents to become permanent or not. There are two basic laws for the purpose of employment of an employee in an establishment/ department, one is Labour Law and the other law relating to civil/ Government servant, wherein the categories of the employees, statute applicable and terns and conditions have been defined. According to Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, a permanent workman is a workman, who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to continue for more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment. The posts against which the respondents have been working has not been restricted to any period or duration, hence, for all intents am purposes are permanent posts. It is constant view of the Superior Courts that an employee serving for more than nine months against a regular post acquires the status of permanent employee. The trend of the Superior Courts is very much clear regarding the issue of regularization/ permanency in the employment i.e. under labour law or civil service, where any employee/worker performing duty for more than nine months would be entitled to be regularized. The Honorable Supreme Court in a case titled as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan and others v. Muhammad Sajid and others reported 2019 PLC (C.S.) 539, regarding employment has laid down the principle as follow: - "It is an admitted position that the respondents before us have been working with the petitioner-Board since long, however, in their clumsy attempt to break the continuity of their service, the petitioner has been employing them for 89 days only, and has been re-hiring them for the next 89 days, and thus continued to avail their service for a long period by creating artificial breaks in their service period. The fact that they have in fact, continuously served the petitioner for a long period of time, albeit the breaks created by the petitioner as noted above, clearly shows that they have been performing job of permanent nature and have not been serving on casual posts. Admittedly. similarly placed employees of BISC Rawalpindi, have been regularized in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court, and upheld by this Court, as noted above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight a single feature distinguishing the nature of the respondents, job/employment, disentitling them from regularization. The respondents in the circumstances, were rightly found eligible and entitled for regularization of their service with the petitioner-Board and have rightly been so ordered through the impugned judgments and we do not find any justification for interfering therewith. The Petitions in the circumstances are dismissed." The Honorable Apex Court in a case titled Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others v. Ahmad Hussain, reported as 2013 SCMR 1547, has held:- Thus it is held that service of respondent shall he governed by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and he shall be considered permanent employee, as he is performing his duties continuously for more than 9 months since 1998 and the learned High Court has rightly issued writ in his favour." The Honorable Supreme Court in another case reported as 2018 PLC (C.S.) 383, titled Abdul Ghafoor v. The President National Bank of Pakistan and others has held as follow:- "

7. As the petitioners for all intents and purposes were engaged/employed by the respondents bank for manual jobs and were being paid salary/compensation for the services they rendered for the respondent-bank, on monthly basis and from year to year personally/manually, and having so served for more than one year, on several 11 months stints, have entitlement for regularization of their services with the respondent-bank.

8. In the circumstances, we would convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same by setting-aside the impugned judgment, and direct the respondent bank to regularize the services of the petitioners as their permanent employees." The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan v. Muhammad Altaf and others reported as 2018 PLC (C.S.) 647 has held that: -

2. The respondents were employed by the petitioner-Board. they have been working as Drivers, Clerks, Naib Qasids and Security Guards, for a considerable period of time. on daily wages. Some of them have been so working since the year 1996. However, their employment contracts were terminated after every 89 days and were resumed a day thereafter. All of them have certainly served the petitioner-Board for not less than nine months, however with artificial breaks, as noted above, this was done to break the continuity of their service with mala fide intent to avoid their regularization. The respondents, despite the fact that their services had matured and were under the law required to be regularized and instead of doing so, as noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, contemplated to make fresh appointments through advertisement, which prompted the respondents to file the writ petition which culminated into the impugned judgment.

3. We in the circumstances as noted above, do not find any lacuna in impugned judgment, legal or otherwise, and find no justification for interfering with the same. The petition is therefore dismissed." The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in reported judgment i.e. 2018 SCMR 325 (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan and another v. Muhammad Altaf and others has held that:- "...Daily wage employees...Regularization in service...All the respondents had served the petitioner Board for not less than nine months, however with artificial breaks, to break the continuity of their service with mala fide intent to avoid their regularization ...Despite the fact that services of respondents had matured and they were under the law required to be regularized, the petitioner Board contemplated to make fresh appointments through advertisement... High Court had rightly regularized the services of the respondents with the petitioner Board.... Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly." In another reported judgment titled Izhar Ahmed Khan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore replied as 1999 SCMR 2557 has held as under:- "(a) West Pakistan Commercial and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, (VI of 1968)....S.O.1(b)(c)...Evidence on record had shown that post against which appointment was made was of permanent nature though in appointment letter same was described as purely temporary and that period of employment continued beyond period of nine months.... Employees in circumstances would be deemed to be permanent workman within definition given in S.O.1(b) of West Pakistan Commercial and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968." Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, Order 1(b) provides that:- "Permanent Workman is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not being an illegal lock out or strike) or involuntarily closure of the establishment and includes a Badli who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty three days during any period of twelve consecutive months."

5. There is no denial to the fact that the respondents were rendering, service continuously for the last several years thus as per Order 1(b) of the Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, attained the status of permanent workmen and it hardly need any emphasis to say that the work performed by the respondent is surely of a permanent nature. The appellant though argued that the respondents were engaged for project work which has been completed but has failed to bring on record the particular of any such project, on the other hand it has noticed that the respondents were engaged by the Pakistan Public Works Department (appellant) hence the learned Single Bench has rightly allowed the grievance petition.

6. As far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the ratio of the judgments relied and referred by the learned counsel for the appellant are not attracted in the instant appeal as the same are based upon distinguishable facts.

7. In the light of the referred authoritative vision of the honorable Courts and above discussion we find that the learned Single Bench has rightly came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of duties performed by the respondents they were entitled to become permanent in service. The appellant has failed to point out any irregularity in the impugned order and we are satisfied that the learned single Bench has passed a well-reasoned order, warrants no interference, the same is hereby maintained, resultantly the appeal in hand along with CMA is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned record room after its due completions. MQ/5/NIRC Appeal dismissed.