1995 PLP 375 (PLC)

Muhammad Suleman Malik for Appellants. Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 in person. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1987. The three appeals captioned above emerge from the orders dated 10‑9‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the three appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Notices were issued to the management in all the three appeals and were sent by registered post on 10‑10‑1987 but none has appeared today. Since the notices have not been received back unserved, the presumption is that they have reached the management. The appeals, therefore, are being decided ex parte.

3. The facts are that a settlement was arrived at between the management and the C.BA. one clause of which was that eight seasonal workers from weighment section will be made permanent on the recommendation of the C.BA. and on their places no seasonal clerk will be recruited and no increase in the strength will be effected, and further that during off‑season from any of them work will also be taken in the section. The management made permanent eight persons namely Abdul Rashid, Malik Gul Muhammad, Iftikhar Ahmad, Abdul Majeed Tabbasum, Amjad Naeem, Baqa Muhammad, Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Ramzan. Since the appellants were not considered, therefore, they challenged the orders of promotion of the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 in their grievance petitions. R.W.1 appeared on behalf of the management and deposed that since the C.BA. had not recommended the appellants, therefore, they were not made permanent. He also stated that the appellants did. not belong to weighment section. The appellants have brought on the record of the learned lower Court a letter from Can Supply Manager, which is exhibited as Exh. R‑1 in some cases and as Exh. R‑6 in others. According to this letter, weighment section consists token, weighment yard, circle office and purchase centre staff. On the basis of this letter the appellants claim that since they are employed in the token section, they belong to weighment section. May it be so, but the other condition, which is also necessary, is not satisfied. As has been mentioned above, only those weighment clerks can be made permanent who have been recommended by the C.BA. The statement of R.W. 1 has not been rebutted by the appellants by any oral or documentary evidence to show that the C.BA. had recommended them also and that they did not recommend respondents Nos. 2 to

6. In these circumstances, the appellants were rightly ignored by the management.

4. As a result, all the appeals fail and are dismissed. A.E./462/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.