2016 PLP 424 (PLC)

JUSTICE (R) SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, CHAIRMAN.

Through this consolidated judgment I propose to dispose of the above mentioned appeals arising out of the consolidated judgment dated 24.07.2015 whereby the separate grievance petitions filed by the respondents were allowed in their favour with the direction to the appellant-department to regularize their services.

2. The facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that the respondents Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Shakir, Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Sattar filed separate grievance petitions before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.08, Bahawalpur asserting in their separate grievance petitions that they had been performing their respective duties for more than nine months, hence attained the status of a permanent worker/workman thus their services be regularized.

3. These grievance petitions were replied by the appellant department in similar manner admitting their appointments on work charge basis for 89 days, however, it was denied that they were entitled for regularization.

4. Learned trial court recorded the separate statements of each of the respondents as PW-1 wherein they got exhibited documents in their favour including the grievance notices and their appointment letters. On the other hand respondent department examined only one of the official as RW-1.

5. Learned trial court vide consolidated judgment dated 24.07.2015 allowed the grievance petitions. Feeling aggrieved the appellant-department have preferred these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that impugned judgment is against law and facts of the case; that respondents were not the permanent employees and employed with the department on work charge basis, according to the requirement at specific time for specific jobs; that IRA, was not applicable on the respondents; that appellant department is not an industrial and commercial establishment and department code is only applicable on the service matters of the respondents, hence grievance petitions were not maintainable; that the learned trial court without any lawful justification considered the period of service as sufficient to declare the respondents as workmen, hence prayed that in the light of judgment cited as 2013 SCMR 13 titled Tehsil Municipal Officer, Kahutta and others v. Gul Faraz Khan, the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and grievance petitions filed by the respondents be dismissed.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the grounds that in so many judgments passed by the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan the workman has been defined and it has consistently been held that if a worker who performs his functions more than 90 days and nature of job is to continue more than 09 months then he attains the status of a permanent worker in the light of the provision of Standing Order 1(b) under scheduled annexed 2(g) of the Punjab Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Act, 2012. Relied on PLD 2003 SC 724 titled as Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas and others, hence prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial court minutely.

9. The only evidence brought on records on behalf of the appellant department is the statement of Muhammad Nawaz, Sub-Engineer TMA, Yazman who in his common statement stated:

10. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on records decided the grievance petitions in favour of the respondents. In a judgment PLD 2003 SC 724 titled as Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas and others whereby it has been held: S.O.1(b) Permanent workman Determination ...Record showed that neither there was any specific project against which the employees were recruited/ appointed, nor the project against which their appointments had taken place had been completed...Inference thus could be drawn that the employees were put on the jobs which were likely to continue for a period of more than nine months, as such in view of provisions of S.O.1(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, they had attained the status of a permanent workman.

11. In a recent judgment passed by honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.1655-L to 1684-L of 2014 titled Punjab Seed Corporation v. Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. dated 18.12.2014, their lordships keeping in view the law laid down by honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in different judgments including 2013 SCMR 13 titled as Tehsil Municipal Officer, TMA Kahuta and another v. Gul Fraz Khan observed in Para 4 of the judgment: Heard. The petitioners have not denied that respondents Nos.3 to 32 have served the institution for more than 9 months without any complaint as well as the nature of their jobs was of workmen. They had been receiving salaries without weekly deductions or for any gazetted holidays and it has come on record, as fully elaborated in the chart given in the impugned judgment, that the respondents have been serving for a period ranging from 3 years to 23 years and in view of para 1(b) of the schedule to West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the High Court has rightly held that they will be considered as permanent employees as they have been working on their jobs beyond the period of 9 months and in this regard it has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Punjab Seed Corporation and 2 others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1995 PLC 539) wherein it has been so held. Further the High Court while relying upon the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others v. Ahmed Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547) held that posts on which the respondents were employed and working were of permanent nature and they be governed by para 1(b) of the Schedule to West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

12. In the light of above discussion, there are no merits in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the records room after its due completion. The trial court's records be sent back immediately. HBT/7/PLT Appeals dismissed.