1990 PLP 538 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A &38(3) ‑‑Aggrieved person ‑‑‑Baildars of Zila Council seeking remedy against non‑regularization‑‑‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petitions on ground that Zila Council had already passed resolution recommending to Government for regularisation of petitioners and they were no longer aggrieved parties‑‑‑Ground given by Labour Court, held, was not cogent and if services of petitioners had been regularised from dates claimed by them only then they could be said to be no longer aggrieved parties‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal accepted appeals and directed regularisation of services from claimed dates in compliance with instructions issued by Divisional Commissioner. JUDGMENT The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated 28‑3‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their regularisation in service as Baildar were dismissed. The ground given by the learned lower Court is that the respondent had already passed a resolution and recommended to the Government for the regularisation of the services of the appellants, therefore, they were no longer aggrieved parties. The ground given by the learned lower Court for dismissing the petitions is not cogent. Merely passing a resolution and sending it to the Commissioner for regularisation is not sufficient. If the services of the appellants had been regularised from the date claimed by them only then it A could be said that they were no longer aggrieved parties. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants have been regularised in 1987. Such a regularisation of service does not satisfy the grievance of the appellants. They claimed regularisation from the date they were taken in service. The Commissioner of Sargodha Division had asked the respondent vide letter Ex.P‑5 to regularise the services of the Baildars, but the respondent did not comply with the order. Ex.P‑5 is dated 9‑6‑1975. The appellants, therefore, got a right from the said date to be regularised as Baildars. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the respondent District Council has no sufficient means, therefore, the instructions contained in Ex.P‑5 were not acted upon. This argument has no force. The respondent may have asked the Commissioner for the supply of funds but it could not ignore the instructions contained in Ex.P‑

5. The appellants got a cause of grievance on account of the non‑compliance of the said letter and, therefore, the learned lower Court should have accepted their petitions.

2. As a result the appeals are accepted and the respondent is directed to regularise the services of the appellants with effect from 9‑6‑1975. A.E./439/Lb.P Appeals accepted.