1989 PLP 28 (PLC)

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 14-10-1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan Camp at D.G.Khan, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was employed vide order dated 18-5-1983, copy of which is Ex. P-1 on ad hoc basis for three months. The period was extended from 19-8-1983 to 18-11-83. It was further extended from 20-11-83 to 20-2-84 when vide impugned order services were terminated. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the terms under which the respondent was taken in service, he was a temporary employee employed on ad hoc basis on the condition that his service could be terminated without notice, therefore, he was debarred from challenging the order of termination of service. It has also been argued that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable, therefore, the respondent had not become permanent. In the written statement no plea was taken that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable. Even no plea was taken that the respondent was not a workman. According to the first proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance is not applicable to the establishments, which are being run by or under the authority of a Government and have statutory rules of service. This is true that the respondent is a Government servant as office of Fishery is a department of Provincial Government but it has not been shown that the appellant's department has its own Rules or that Government Servants Rules have been adopted. Since neither plea was taken in the written statement that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable nor any Rules were brought on the record, it cannot be said that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. The appellant remained in service for more than 9 months and during arguments it has been said that after his termination another person was employed which means the post of Watcher is a permanent post. Since the respondent completed the probationary period of three months satisfactorily, he under S.O. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968-had become permanent before his services were terminated. The conditions of service given in the order of appointment Ex.P-1, therefore, are immaterial since they are in violation of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The allegation against the respondent was that he had remained absent on 8-1-84 and 17-1-1984. According to Standing Order 15(3)(e) absence for more than 10 days without leave amounts to misconduct. The absence of two days, therefore, did not amount to misconduct and even if the respondent had been charge-sheeted and enquiry had been held against him he could not have been terminated from service. The respondent neither claimed back benefits nor stated in his statement that after termination, he had remained jobless. He is, therefore, not entitled to back benefits nor same were allowed by the learned lower Court.

3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./270/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.