2016 PLP 462 (PLC)

AZHAR UL HABIB KHAN, MEMBER.

The present appeal has been filed against he order dated 13/11/2015 of the learned Member NIRC Ghulam Nabi Derishik where by the petition of the respondent was accepted and after setting aside the termination order of the respondent the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent with all back benefits.

2. Fact in brief are that the respondent was initially appointed on daily wages till 30/6/2004 and thereafter under the policy of the government, he was appointed on contract bases .it is stated that the respondent was appointed against the permanent post of the Driver till his termination dated 1/7/2008 therefore being a permanent worker he could not be terminated without any reason. it is stated in the petition that the respondent has rendered his service continuously for 9 month and as such he has attained the status of the permanent employee accordance to the provision of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (standing Order) 1968. It is- further stated that junior employees to him has been regularized and confirmed but the respondent has been ignored.

3. Written statement was filed by the appellant before the Labour court as this petition was intialy filed before the labour court and after the promulgation of the IRA 2012, the petition was transferred to this commission. The appellant stated in the written statement that the respondent has concealed the real fact from the court .it is stated that the respondent was performing his duty as driver and before this job, the respondent was regular employee of the appellant company (Heavy Mechanical Complex). He opted Golden hand Shake scheme and was relieved in the year 1999 after receiving dues and benefits under the scheme. It is stated as per instruction issued by the Cabinet Division a decision was taken that the employees of the corporation Autonomous Bodies who opted for GHS will not be eligible for employment under the Public Sector for a period of 5 years in any form i.e. re-employment contract appointment, etc. it is stated that the petitioner after opted GHS accepted to serve on daily wages Basis and continued his service till 30/6/2004.and after introducing of the contract employment policy by the government, the respondent was appointed on his application dated 19/6/2004 on contract basis which was duly accepted and signed by the respondent. It is stated that the contract of the respondent was expired 30/6/2008. It is stated that the period of the contract was two years which was extended during his service two times. However his tenure was not extended due to his performance and behavior.

4. Evidence of the parties in pro and contra recorded before the learned presiding officer of the Labour Court the petition was transferred to the NIRC after promulgation of the IRA 2012 where the learned Member NIRC Islamabad accepted the petition of the respondent vide impugned order and verbal removal order of the respondent was declared illegal and the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent with all back benefits.

5. Aggrieved from this order the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record consisting of evidence of the parties. PW1 Raja Nafasat respondent admitted in his statement that he was serving in the Heavy Mechanical Complex and took GHS in the year 1999. He also admitted that he was employed on daily wages and then in the year 2004 he was appointed on contract basis for the period of two year which was extended. He also admitted that under the GHS he has taken his all dues.

6. Now the question for determination is this that whether a retired employee who have been re-employed on contract basis can ask for regularization or claim to be a regularized employee.

7. The respondent has admitted that he was previously serving in the HMC which is the same department of the state engineering where the respondent was employed on contract basis under the policy of the government for running their work with the experience worker. The respondent has admitted that he has signed the contract agreement whereby his employment was for the period of two year which could be revoked at any time by the appellant. This period of contract was further extended time and again. Now the respondent cannot say that his service has become permanent under the standing order. The respondent was retired/ relieved under the GHS policy of the government which he himself opted.

8. The respondent was contract employee of the appellant whose services were not further extended. As per agreement therefore standing order 1968 is not applicable in such cases. The order of the learned Member NIRC Islamabad date 13/11/2015 in respect of re-instatement of the respondent is set aside. HBT/7/NIRC Appeal allowed.