1993 PLP 825 (PLC(CS))

Ainuddin for Appellant. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 22‑9‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits under section 25‑A, I.R.O.1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed that he was appointed against permanent workman who had proceeded on long leave from time to time form the year 1983 and that he had worked as Mail Peon against the leave vacancy as Badli worker from 18‑1‑1986 to 6‑11‑1986 i.e. for 231 days and more than 183 days in 12 months, thus, acquired a status of a permanent workman under the relevant Laws. He claimed that all of a sudden on 6‑11‑1986, he was directed to make over the charge of his post without assigning any reason and even, without issuing any termination or discharge letter. The respondent claimed that, being aggrieved, he filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

3. The appellant Department resisted the petition on the grounds, firstly, that the provisions of either Workmen's Compensation Act and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable on the employments of the appellant's Department and secondly as the respondent was temporarily engaged only against the leave vacancy, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ainuddin, the learned Advocate for the appellants Department and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that it has been consistent view of this Tribunal that the provisions of section 1(2) (b) of I.R.O., 1969. were also applicable to the employments of Post, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, even if the same are carried on or by the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government where no Statutory rules of service etc. were applicable to the workmen employed, therefore, I find it needless to repeat the same. It has been against an admitted position the respondent had worked for more than 183 days in the 12 months, as Badli worker, against permanent post therefore, without any doubt, he acquired the status of a permanent workman. According to the legal position that a person who had been engaged on work of permanent nature even, as a Badli worker, would be deemed to be a permanent workman if he had been employed for a continuous period of 3 months or for 183 days during a period of 12 consecutive months. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the respondent was appointed against leave vacancies but, certainly against the posts of permanent nature. Therefore, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order, which is well‑reasoned and it must be maintained.

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 appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with all back benefits, forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the appellant Department before this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent, Nadeem Ahmad Khan, after due verification. M.Y.H./1168/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.