1990SCMR1539 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 1 and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR1539 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 1 and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1539 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1539 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1539 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 1 and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Khakan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25‑10‑1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 4753 of 1987). (a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 1(1)‑‑‑Permanent workman‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Length of employment by itself having not been made ground or test for determining nature of works where work of employee was not of a permanent nature, however long may be his employment, he could not be taken to be a permanent workman‑‑‑Person who served as a work‑charged employee on daily wages and who was not paid wages for Fridays, cannot claim to be a permanent workman even if he served for 8 years. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑No question of law requiring further examination by Supreme Court was raised by petitioner‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M. Khakan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner was employed as a Mate Mali in the Lahore Development Authority and served on the work charge establishment for eight years. While his grievance alongwith others was pending in the Labour Court, the services of the Petitioner were terminated and he challenged the termination order. The Labour Court held as hereunder:‑‑ "It is further declared that by virtue of eight years of his service, it was clear that he was working against a permanent post and was a permanent employee of the Lahore Development Authority, Lahore."
2. An appeal was taken to the appellate Court and it reversed the judgment holding as hereunder:‑ "A person who does not work continuously for more than ninety days and has not satisfactorily completed the probationary period, he cannot be a permanent worker. The respondent has in his very grievance petition said that he is a work‑charged employee. He appeared as his own witness but did not say whether he used to get wages for the full month including wages for Fridays and holidays. If he was not paid wages for Fridays then his services could not become continuous and, therefore, he could not claim to be a permanent worker."
3. The High Court in constitutional jurisdiction refused to interfere, as a finding of fact had been recorded which was not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity.
4. In order to get the benefit of the Standing Orders Ordinance in the matter of termination of service, the Petitioner had to show that he was a permanent workman. A `Permanent Workman' has been defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance by reference to the nature of the work on which he has been engaged or employed. If the work is not of a permanent nature, then howsoever long may be his employment, he cannot be taken to be a' permanent workman. The length of the period of employment by itself has not been made the ground or a test for determining the nature of the work. Keeping in view the nature of the work on which the Petitioner was employed, namely, an addition to the regular strength of Malis for the maintenance of the gardens and the grounds on daily wages or on work charge basis, it cannot be said that such additional work being done by him was of a permanent nature necessarily. As regards the stigma attaching to the permanence of his services, the Petitioner has as witness admitted that the termination order was oral and not in writing.
5. In the circumstances no question of law arises which may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. H.B.T./M‑1123/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.