2012 PLP 175 (PLC)

(2) Every permanent workman shall be provided with a departmental ticket, showing his number, and shall on being required to do so, show it to any person authorized by the employer to inspect it. (3) Every badli shall be provided with a badli card, on which shall be entered the days on which he has worked in the establishment, and which shall be surrendered if he obtains permanent employment. (4) Every temporary workman shall be provided with a temporary ticket which he shall surrender on his discharge. (5) Every apprentice shall be provided with an apprentice card, which shall be surrendered if he obtains permanent employment." According to the appellant management, respondent No.1 worker Muhammad Qadeer was appointed on 8-6-2009. Whereas, the Social Security contribution record bears his name in the list for the month of April, 2009 at Sr. No.4 and Sr. No.68 for February, 2009 and at Sr. No.58 for December, 2008, Sr. No.62 for November, 2008, Sr. No.9 for September, 2008, Sr. No.1 for August, 2008, Sr. No.22 for July, 2008, Sr. No.42 for June, 2008, Sr. No.53 for March, 2008, Sr. No.56 for February, 2008, Sr. No.80 for January, 2008, Sr. No.39 for December, 2007. All these documents were admitted by the appellant witness before learned Labour Court and if, I count the above contributions paid by the appellant employer for more than a period of two years clearly, unambiguously established that the job on which the respondent worker was appointed, was a permanent nature of job and lasted for more than two years, therefore, in view of the definition of the "permanent workman" as given by the Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the respondent worker(s) was a permanent workman(s) and is entitled for termination letter with explicit reason as provided under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance 1968, which is reproduced hereunder:

"

12. Termination of employment: (1) .............................................................................. (2) .............................................................................. (3) The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance." In grievance petition respondent workers claimed that their services were terminated verbally without assigning any reason. Whereas, the appellant management has produced a termination letter dated 31-8-2009 as annexure "C/1" with the written statement. During the course of cross-examination of the respondent worker, no suggestion has been put to him that the termination letter was served upon him and no postal receipt/TCS was filed before the learned Labour Court with the written statement or affidavit in evidence of their witness. To the contrary, appellant witness during cross-examination has stated as under:

"It is correct that termination letter dated 31-8-2009 not bearing address of applicant. Vol. says it was given by hand along with final payment. It is correct to suggest termination letter not bears acknowledgement of applicant. Vol. says their signatures are on final payment slip/sheets. It is correct no document of final payment and acknowledgement of applicant produced in Court with W.S. and affidavit in evidence. It is correct that there is no reference in W.S. and affidavit in evidence about final payment and acknowledgement. Vol. says there is one letter dated 31-8-2009 annexure "C/1" to W.S. without acknowledgement. It is incorrect to suggest no termination letter given to applicant, no final payment made." Before parting with the decision/judgment, I have to go through the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant management as under:

1999 PLC 493

District Manager SRTC v. Nooruddin. In the referred case, respondent worker failed to point out any document of employment. Whereas, in the present case employment is admitted, therefore, the citation is distinguished 2008 PLC 72 Messrs Samkar Tamiraat (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Hussain. Regarding the number of workmen employed and applicability of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. No such question raised in the present appeal, therefore, this citation is also distinguished. PLD 1997 Karachi 6 -- Nooruddin and 11 others v. Abdul Waheed. The relevant question in the referred case about the proof of specific particular fact and whereas, in the present case the employment was admitted, length of service is proved through admitted documents, hence judgment is distinguished. PLD 2003 Karachi 45 -- Haji Riyaz Ahmed Mir v. Brig. Retd. Ch. Muhammad Sharif and 1993 PLC 2 -- Recha Pakistan Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar Virani. Also in respect of burden of proof. I am afraid the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on it and also high lighted first line of para-2 which having a reference of admission of certain facts in the written statement. Such certain facts as admitted by the appellant management in written statement i.e. employment of the respondent workers, but had challenged the status of workmen, either permanent or temporary. Appellant management fails to prove its contentions. Whereas, contrary evidence has been produced before the learned Labour Court which has rightly found and considered by the learned Labour Court. PLD 1987 SC 304 Pakistan v. Public-at-Large I am afraid that the learned Counsel for the appellant is relying on the same and failed to point out any relevancy with the present case, as the question in the cited case was the insertion of Section 13 in Civil Servants Act for premature retirement of a civil servant, which has no relevancy with the present case. I have also gone through the citations 1993 PLC 192, 1979 PLC 207, 2000 YLR 1669, 2011 PLC 623 and 2005 SCMR 100 and found that the same are irrelevant, distinguished. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent workers relied on the following:

PLD 1996 SC 610 -- Executive Engineer Central Civil Division Pak PWD Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others. In the cited case the employer department failed to bring on record that work for which employees in question were engaged was not to last for more than nine months - work in question as far as the employer department was concerned, thus was of permanent in nature - findings of labour forum employees in question were permanent employees of the employer department was found on evidence on record in circumstances. Similarly, in the present case the services of the respondent workers was continued for more than two years, hence relying on the same dictum held cited judgment is applicable on the present case. 2009 SCMR 320 -- Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Punjab Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akhtar and others In the cited case Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Labour Court by saying that Labour Court had recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of duties performed by employees and their length of continuous service, they were entitled to be regularized .... Case was not fit for warranting interference by Supreme Court. Same is the position here. 2008 SCMR 1058 -- Tehsil Municipal Administration Rahimyar Khan and others v. Hanif Masih and others. In the cited case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

when respondents were working for the last more than 20 years against the post which were permanent in nature, concurrent order passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court were unexceptionable. I am fortified with the said judgment and ordered accordingly. 2006 PLC 102 -- Farooq Ahmed versus Delta Shipping (Pvt.) Limited. Hon'ble High Court held that

service no longer required mentioned in termination letter did not constitute reason

termination letter was not in accordance with Standing Order 12(3). I agree with the same. In view of the above discussions on facts and the case-laws cited by the relevant parties, I am in agreement with the learned Labour Court and confirmed its Findings by dismissing the above appeals and directing the appellant management to follow the decision of the learned Labour Court within thirty days. As I have already considered and scrutinized the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the respondent workers were employed on permanent nature of job and served for more than two years, as proved by way of evidence, which is basically an admitted evidence on the part of the appellant management, therefore, there is no need to record additional evidence or to frame any further issue on the point, which is basically raised in miscellaneous application dated 16-9-2011 and I find no merits in the said application, which is hereby dismissed as not maintainable H.B.T./7/SLT Appeals dismissed.