2008 PLP 302 (PLC)

SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in F.A.Os. Nos.18-L, 19-L, 20-L, 21-L, 22-L, 23-L, 24-L and 25-L of 2007, therefore, the same are being disposed of through this single judgment.

2. Respondent in all the appeals have been working on work charge basis under the appellants under different categories. Contending that they had been working continuously and none of the respondent had service of less than five years without break with unblemished record, they demanded regularization of their service which was denied, hence, they approached the Labour Court. Prayer of the respondents was granted by the learned Labour Court, Multan vide consolidated judgment, dated 16-12-2006 assailed through these appeals.

3. Preliminary arguments heard.

4. Learned A.A.-G. submitted that the respondents did not fall under the category of employees within the meanings of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. They were neither appointed on permanent basis nor taken on ad hoc basis nor on contract. The impugned judgment, therefore, was coram non judice qua the learned Judge Labour Court. All the cases were disposed of through single judgment by the learned trial Court. The evidence in each case was not separately discussed. The respondents had failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim that they had been serving continuously under the appellants. They never worked against sanctioned posts, hence, the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

5. Reference was made by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment that cases of workers under similar circumstances and facts were disposed of by this Court in F.A.O. No.64 of 2005 and F.A.O. No.200 of 2005 and the matter was decided in favour of the workers. The matter was taken to the Honourable Apex Court by the petitioner but without success. No ground specifically was raised in the memo. of appeals to show that any finding of the learned trial Court was against facts. The grounds urged are of stereotyped nature. The Government offices maintain full record of employment of the employees working even on work charge basis. When inquired as to why such record was not produced by the petitioner during evidence to show that there was any break in the period for which the respondents worked with the appellants, learned A.A.-G. submitted that the onus of proof of employment and continuity of service was on the respondents who had failed to discharge the same.

6. I do not agree with learned A.A.-G. because by making statement in their favour, the respondents discharged the initial onus of proof and it was "then for the appellants to prove that the claim of the respondents was false or not supported by the relevant law/case-law. Since absolutely identical questions of law were involved regarding the factual position and no specific example has been mentioned in the memo. of appeals as to how and what prejudice was caused to the appellants for recording single judgment, contention of the appellants in this regard is also found to be devoid of force.

7. In view of the above all the appeals are dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-14/L Appeals dismissed.