1999 PLP 47 (PLC)

Propriety/soundness of the order dated 31‑5‑1992, passed by Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sheikh, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faisalabad has been assailed by way of this appeal, preferred by the Authorities of the F.D.A. on 7‑7‑1992.

2. Nadeem Kashif was an electrician, having been appointed on daily wages, according to the establishment, and as a permanent employee, as pleaded by him. The services were terminated on 29‑10‑1988, and this order was challenged as being arbitrary and unlawful by the employee, by having recourse to the Labour Court. According to him, there hap been no break in the continuity of his service, and he has been serving against a permanent post on permanent projects. This testimony, in the opinion of the learned lower Court, has gone unchallenged.

3. Payment of emoluments used to be made to him on monthly basis and deductions on account of holidays used not to be effected. In view of the observations made in 1986 PLC 705 and 1980 PLC 1115, it has been observed by the learned lower Court that a work‑charged employee would be a person who is paid charges for the work done. Payment for weekly holidays and other gazetted holidays is not made to him. This official, however, used to get his consolidated salary in lump sum and thus was to be treated as regular or permanent employee.

4. Admittedly he was removed from service, without observance of the requisite formalities, as service of show‑cause notice and a charge‑sheet and without a regular departmental enquiry, in which he was to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. His service was brought to an end in a summary manner. Therefore, it cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. It was pleaded by the official before the Labour Court that several persons junior to him were retained and their services were also regularised but revengeful and retaliatory treatment was meted out to him. He had not committed any act of misconduct, but still he was made the target of injudicious and arbitrary action, in the shape of termination of his services. In the opinion of the Court below, the official has, beyond any manner of doubt, fallen prey to victimisation and discrimination, action having been taken in a manner patently contrary to rules and the general law on the subject.

5. Labour Court's jurisdiction in the matter could not possible be questioned, as the grievance petitioner was an electrician and manifestly a workman. He was, in fact, entitled to regularisation and confirmation of his services, following completion of three months' probationary period and on expiry of nine months' uninterrupted satisfactory service, but legal status of permanent workman was not conceded to him and he was instead ousted from service in a summary fashion, which act could not be endorsed. The learned lower Court, therefore, set aside the order of termination of services of the grievance petitioner There is no merit in the appeal, filed to challenge the vires or validity of the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court. The appeal is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

6. As, however, the respondent has rendered no practical service to the organisation, even though he had been ousted from service for no fault on his part, I would reduce the back benefits to one‑half. With this modification, the lower Court order, reinstating the respondent in service, is affirmed; and the appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./938/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.