1991 PLP 114 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 10th April, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, First Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 1-3-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant is that he was working as Loader in the respondent's factory since, 1985 but his services were terminated on 5-3-1987. Aggrieved by this termination of service he served grievance notice and thereafter he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellant was appointed as a temporary workman from time to time a., the nature of job was temporary and therefore, his services were terminated after his services were no more required,

3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rashid Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. H.A. Jafri, the learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. The evidence on record show that the appellant was appointed through various appointment letters dated 19-5-1985, 19-8-1985, 8-12-1985, 9-3-1986, 24-6-1986, 16-10-1986 and 21-12-1986 for certain period mentioned in the said letters which in each case is less than three months. According to the witness of the respondent Mr. Anwar Jamal, there was a break of service in between termination of earlier appointments and subsequent appointments of the appellant each time. Though no order of termination of service on any of the dates has been produced and no record has been produced to show that the service of the appellant was terminated on the date as alleged by Mr. Anwar Jamal, but his evidence on this aspect has gone unchallenged. The appellant in his evidence has not stated that he had been continuously working without break throughout the period from 1985.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted because the appellant did not deny his termination from time to time, therefore, the orders of termination of his service which were available with him were not produced.

6. The main contention of the appellant is that he was working in the job of a permanent nature. No doubt Mr. Anwar Jamal has admitted that presently one Loader is working permanently with them since, 1987, but again no question has been put to him that prior to 1987, the job of Loader was of permanent nature.

7. There being no evidence that at any time the appellant has worked for more than three months continuously as Loader and his admission that he was appointed temporarily from time to time vide appointment letters, which all bear his signatures and have been produced by him, would clearly show that he had not acquired the right as permanent workman.

8. Mr. Rashid Khan the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court at Karachi, reported in 1967 L L C

432. This case is with regard to industrial disputes raised by the C.BA. Union after conciliation proceedings had failed. The demand of the C.BA. Union which the learned Labour Court accepted was that no temporary or casual worker be employed on jobs of permanent nature and those working on permanent nature of jobs having three months service should be treated permanent. In that case the Management was not able to prove that the job was of temporary nature and therefore, this demand was accepted.

9. Obviously the reported case is distinguishable. In the instant case appellant has not worked continuously for three months at any time and further more no question has been put in cross examination to the witness for the respondents that job was not of temporary nature but was of permanent nature at the time when the appellant was being employed from time to time. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1986 P L C

402. In that case the workman was appointed on 22-1-1982 and his services were terminated on 21-5-1983. The Management could not prove that the job was not a permanent nature, therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant that he was permanent employee was accepted. This case is also distinguishable as the workman had worked for more than one year.

10. In view of the above discussions, I find that there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. M.Y.H./1657/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.