1990 PLP 737 (PLC)

Mian Abdul Rashid for Appellants. Habibur Rehman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1989. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 29‑1‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, he whereby accepting the grievance petition of the respondent, he has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. Vide order dated 12‑6‑1984 Exh. P‑15/Exh. R‑26, the services of the respondent were terminated. He had been appointed on the post from which he was terminated vide order mentioned above, on 11‑4‑1984 for 60 days vide Exh. P‑14 for the period from 14‑4‑1984 to 12‑6‑1984. Before that the respondent was appointed sometime in leave vacancies and sometime for a fixed period, against different` posts and his services were terminated on the expiry of the period for which he was appointed. New appointments were with gaps. The orders of previous appointments arc Exh. P‑7 when he was appointed for 27 days in the leave vacancy of Muhammad Sabir, Cashier. Vide Exh. P‑8 he was appointed for 75 days in connection with the work of sugar‑cane. Vide Exh. P‑9 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Muhammad Ashraf Cashier, for the period from 22‑10‑1981 to 5‑11‑1981. Vide Exh. P‑10 he was appointed in connection with the work of sugar‑cane season. Vide Exh. P‑11 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Muhammad Hanif for 30 days. Vide Exh. P‑12 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Mir Abdullah. Khan for 34 days. Vide Exh. P‑13 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Ghulam Murtaza for 31 days. The orders of termination are Exh. R‑1 to Exh. R‑26 and they show that re appointments of the respondent were with gaps. According to the documentary evidence discussed above, the respondent did not remain employed continuously. However, the respondent in his statement deposed that he remained continuously employed but produced no document in support of his statement. If he had, in reality, worked continuously against different posts, without any break, attendance register, pay register and the record of the work done by him would have been shown but he did not call that evidence. The orders of termination bear his signatures. His signatures were proved by RW‑1 namely Manzoor Ahmed Butt, Manager. RW‑1 was not cross‑examined on the point that the termination orders were bearing the signatures of the respondent in token of their receipt. It was suggested to RW‑1 that as a Cashier the appointment of the respondent was permanent but he denied this fact.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the case be remanded so that the respondent could produce documentary evidence, such as, attendance register, pay register and the record of the work done by him. He has Yid that this Tribunal has in some other cases of the same nature remanded the cases for production of further evidence. He has pointed out only a case of Abdul Hameed Alvi. The judgment of that case has been perused but it does not show that the employee had remained employed against different posts. Since the respondent was employed against different posts, unless some concrete documentary evidence had been produced, it could not be held that in reality his service was continuous. This is not the case of the respondent that he remained from first to the last against one and the same post. If the orders of termination had not been bearing the signatures of the respondent, there could be scope to say that the orders were fictitious and may have been prepared afterwards. So, it stands proved by the unrebutted documentary evidence that the respondent was not a regular and continuous employee of the appellant. The learned lower Court thus erred in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent and directing his reinstatement.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. H.B.T./678/Lb. P Appeal accepted.