1977 PLP 630 (PLC)

From June 1971 to October 1971. From 1st May 1972 to 31stAugust 1972. From 1st November 1972 to 31stNovember 1972. From 1st March 1973 to 15thMay 1973. From 2nd September 1973 to 1stNovember 1973. From 5th November 1973 to 31stDecember 1973.

3. The respondent appeared as his own witness before the learned lower Court and he also examined Mr. Suleman Butt as his witness before the said Court. In rebuttal the appellant produced Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Butt as witness. Besides his verbal evidence the respondents produced documents Exhs. P-1 to P-6. The appellant produced Exhs. R-1 to R-7 and also Exh. RWI.

4. After considering the parties' evidence the learned lower Court by its order, dated 11thDecember 1974, found that the respondent was a permanent employee and that the appellant had not observed the proper procedure while terminating him, consequently his application was accepted with full back benefits.

5. The said order has been impugned through the present appeal. 5-A. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties has been minutely analysed. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 5-B. As regards the plea of limitation raised by the appellant it is observed that according to the appellant's own contention the respondent was terminated by the order dated 26th December 1973 (Exh. R-3) with effect from 31st December 1973. The respondent has stated that he had served grievance notice Exh. P-5, dated 26th January 1974, on the appellant. Application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was filed by the respondent on 18th March 1974. This application would, therefore, appear to be within time. So far as merits of the case are concerned it is sufficiently established from the documentary evidence produced by the appellant as well as from the testimony of Mr. Suleman Butt a witness produced by the respondent himself that on the last occasion the respondent, was appointed on temporary basis from 5th November 1973 to 31st December 1973. He was just a badly worker and he was delivered letter of termination Exh. R-3, whereby he was terminated with effect from 31st December 1973 according to the terms of his appoint ment. This witness has also stated that the respondent was paid his wages for tile month of December 1973.

6. In the light of these conclusions we find that the respondent worked against the temporary vacancy for about two months from 5thNovember 1973 to 31st December 1973 and he was duly terminated according to the terms of his appointment. In Messrs Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Aziz-ud-Din and another (1973 P L C 101) it was held by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that if a per son is employed originally for a period of 3 months and on expiry of 3 months period was again employed for one month with condition of termination; if a, work is completed earlier such an employment was not on probation but was specifically for one month terminable even earlier if work finished. Such a person was not a permanent worker and termination of his services did not involve violation of Standing Order

12. Similar view has been taken in 1972 P L C 432.

7. In view of the above it is found that the respondent was not permanent workman and he was validly terminated according to the terms of his temporary appointment. Otherwise findings recorded by the learned lower Court are, therefore, erroneous. We would accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the learned lower Court.