1997 PLP 208 (PLC)

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 51‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employee who was ordered to be re instated without awarding back benefits, had himself admitted in his evidence that he was employed as a seller of old clothes during the time he was not employed by employer‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances, could not claim back benefits because he was gainfully employed during period of his termination. Miss Rukhsana Ahmed for the Pakistan Steel Mills. Gohar lqbal for the Worker. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1996. These are three connected appeals against the order of the Fourth 'Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the appellant was declared to be a permanent worker and termination of his service verbally was found to be illegal and he was therefore directed to be reinstated in service but without back benefits because he had deposed that he was not jobless, he was selling old clothes. The third appeal by the same worker is for the back benefits.

2. It is the case of the respondent that he was working in the Steel Mills as Mechanical Fitter from 13‑2‑1984 to 16‑1‑1991 for seven years when his services were verbally terminated on the plea hat they were no longer required. The termination of 22‑1‑1992 was set aside by the Labour Court because the order was not in writing and explicit reasons for termination were not given as required under Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent worker was however reinstated but not given his pay for a month and he again went to the Labour Court and he was again reinstated in service.

3. It is the case of the Pakistan Steel Mills, as argued by Miss Rukhsana, that the respondent was not a permanent worker because he was paid daily wages and he was therefore a daily wage worker. Mr. Gohar Iqbal for the respondent has on the other hand argued that the respondent having worked for seven years was also given an Identity Card dated 14‑11‑1984 and he was therefore a permanent worker. Apart from this Identity Card no other evidence has been produced by the respondent to show that he was continuously working in the Steel Mills for all these seven years. However apart from the question of being a permanent worker the more important question is regarding his reinstatement. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was not given an order in writing terminating his services nor were the reasons for termination explicitly stated. It has been admitted by Mr. Shakeel Ahmed witness for the Steel Mills that the respondent was orally terminated by XEN, Mechanical Department. He has also admitted that the work in Mechanical Department is of permanent nature so that after three months' continuous work the respondent becomes a permanent worker under the Schedule Standing Order 1(b). The respondent was working in the Mechanical Department and this Department was admittedly a, permanent Department. There is no evidence of any change in the Department. There is every likelihood that the respondent continuously worked for at least three months during the seven years that he worked with the Department. The double appeal of the Pakistan Steel Mills against reinstatement therefore stands dismissed. The order of the Labour Court is maintained.

4. As regards third appeal by the worker for back benefits, the worker has himself admitted in his evidence that he was employed as a seller of old clothes during the time he was not employed by the Steel Mills. He cannot therefore claim back benefits because he was gainfully employed during the period. This appeal by the workmen being Appeal No. KAR‑70 of 1996 is accordingly dismissed, in limine. H.B.T./104/Lb.S Order accordingly.