1978 PLC 205 (PLP)

Petitioner in person Rashid Arshad for Respondent. Muhammad Naeem Sajad an ex‑Conductor, Kot Lakhpat Depot of L.O.S., Lahore has brought the under, consideration application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the respondent seeking his re‑instatement with back benefits.

2. He has contended in his application that he was appointed as Conduc tor on 8th October 1974 and was allotted Ticket No. B/195 and that his sera vices have been terminated on 25th August 1975 without issuing him any charge‑sheet and show‑cause notice. No enquiry has been held and he has been condemned unheard.

3. The respondents have resisted the application and have pleaded that actually the petitioner was appointed as Conductor with effect from 30th May. 1975 vide office order dated 31st May 1975 and his service have been terminated while he was still under probation as his w r was not satisfactory during the period of probation.

4. Muhammad Naeem Sajjad petitioner has appeared as his own witness. He has stated that he was appointed as Conductor on 8th October 1974. He had been performing duties in Ichhra Depot. Thereafter, vide letter Exh. P. I. the District Manager Ichhra Depot transferred him to the District Manager, Kot Lakbpat Depot. Lahore on 24th May 1975. He has been terminated on 25th August 1975. Before termination he was not charge‑sheeted and no enquiry was held. He has alleged that he was a permanent employee on 25th August 1975. He has produced Exh. P‑2 order of termination dated the 25th August 1975. He stated that so long he remained in L.O.S., Ichhra he used to report for duty regularly and whenever, the duty clerk assigned any duty the same was performed by him.

5. In rebuttal Abdur Rashid, Court Clerk of L O.S., Kot Lakhpat has testified as R. W. I. He has stated that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in L. O. S. Kot Lakhpat Depot with effect from 30th May 1975 vide order Exh R‑

7. He stated that this order was displayed on the notice board and it was fresh appointment of the petitioner as Conductor. In reply to Court question this witness admitted that the services of the petitioner were utilized by Ichhra Depot as Badly Conductor and the petitioner served as Badly Conductor In a period of 8 months for 42 days. The contents of Exh. P‑1 a letter addressed by District Manager, L. O. S., Ichhra Depot to the District Manager L. O. S., Kot Lakhpat Depot show that the petitioner alongwith others as directed to report at Kot Lakhpat on 26th May, 1975 for regular appointment as Conductor. This letter further shows that the petitioner bad already a personal file which was to be sent separately in due course of time. In the list enclosed with letter Exh. P‑I. the petitioner is shown as Badly Conductor at serial No.

21. Exh. R‑7 is an order of regular appointment of the petitioner and others as Conductors in L. O. S., Kot Lakhpat Depot with effect from 30th July 1975.

6. From the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties it is established that with effect from 30th May 1975 till his termina tion i. e. till 25th August, 1975 the petitioner served as a regular Conductor on probation in L. O. S., Kot Lakhpat Depot and previously he had been serving as a Badly Conductor in Ichhra Depot of L. O. S. and in the said Depot according to the respondents own admission he served as a Badly Conductor in a period of 8 months for 42 days. It is also evident that actually District Manager L. O. S. Ichhra transferred the petitioner to L. O. S. Kot Lakhpat. It i3 thus amply proved that the petitioner had put in more than 3 months service as a Badly Conductor as well as regular appointee on probation by the time he was terminated on 25th August 1975. According to Standing Order 1(b) of the Schedule to the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 a "permanent workman" is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than 9 months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of 3 months and includes a Badly who had been employed for a continuous period of 3 months or for 183 days during any period of 12 consecutive months.

7. This means that Badly workmen are to be treated as permanent if their period of permanent employment is 3 months or if they are employed for 183 days during any period of 12 months.

8. In the under consideration case Mr. Abdur Rashid, Court Clerk has stated that the petitioner has served as Badly Conductor in the period of 8 months for 42 days in Ichhra Depot. Period of 8 months is certainly more than 183 days.

9. In view of the above the position boils down to this that the peti tioner was permanent on 25th August 1975 when he was terminated. He could not therefore be terminated without observing the procedure prescribed by Standing Orders 12 and 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The said procedure has admittedly not been observed by the respondent in this view of the matter I accept the petition and order the reinstatement of the petitioner with back benefits.