1990 PLP 51 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.14‑‑Re‑employment of seasonal worker‑ -Unconditional right having been given to seasonal worker to be re‑employed in next work season; employer would have no discretion to refuse his re employment on ground that work of workman during last working season was not satisfactory when employer failed to prove by whatever evidence that his work was not satisfactory. Karamat Ali Junior of Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellants. S.P. Lodhi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th August, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, dated 3‑5‑1988, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed ordering his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was admittedly a workman employed by the appellant in the crushing season of sugarcane. For the last time he was employed in the crushing season 1986‑87 and was discharged on 23‑4‑1987 after closer of the season. The appellant advertised the start of the new crushing season on 1‑10‑1987. The respondent allegedly approach6d the appellant on 28‑9‑1987 but was given no definite reply with regard to his appointment. Failing to get appointment in the crushing season of 1987‑88 he, after serving grievance notice upon the appellant on 28‑12‑1987, filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The appellant resisted the grievance application on the ground that the respondent was not a seasonal worker but was a temporary worker, that the grievance notice was time‑barred and that in the termination letter, dated 23‑4‑1987 it was stated that his work was not found satisfactory and therefore it was not obligatory for the appellant to re‑employ him.

3. I have heard Mr. Karamat Ali, Advocate junior of Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.P. Lodhi, representative for the respondent and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. With regard to limitation it may be pointed out that admittedly the crushing season was to start from 1‑10‑1987. The respondent had he been employed, would have been employed from 1‑10‑1987 and as such the cause of action for non‑employment accrued to him on 1‑10‑1987. Admittedly the grievance notice sent by him on 28‑12‑1987 was received by the appellant on 29 12‑1987 is within three months from the cause of action as provided under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969. The grievance notice, therefore, cannot he said to be time barred.

5. With regard to the controversy as to whether respondent are seasonal or temporary worker the learned trial Court has pointed out documents A/6, A/7 and A/8 which are documents of the appellants and in which respondent is shown to be as seasonal worker. In plea of documentary evidence the oral words of the witnesses of the appellant that he was temporary worker has little evidentiary value. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly held the respondent to be seasonal worker.

6. As regards third objection of the appellants Standing Order 14 gives unconditional right to the seasonal worker to be re‑employed in the next work season and does not leave it to the discretion of the employer to refuse re employment on the ground that the working of the employee in the last working season was not found satisfactory. As for the contention that the working of the respondent in the last working‑season was not satisfactory there is no evidence to show that any show‑cause notice was issued to him or any enquiry was held. Reliance is placed only upon a letter Ex. R/1 to Reply Statement in which it is stated that the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory. This R%1 has not been properly proved the officer who has signed the Reply Statement has not been examined nor the author of the letter has been examined. Besides in the cross‑examination the respondent has denied the receipt of this letter or his signature upon it and there is no evidence to the contrary.

7. In view of the above discussion I find no merits in this appeal, which is dismissed. H.B.T./1480/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.