P L D 1976 Karachi 147 (PLP)

In this petition this petitioner has assailed the order of the Labour Court No. IV. Karachi, dated 23rd April 1974, reversing the order of the Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court dated 4th March 1974, whereby he had ordered the re-instatement of the petitioner in service.

2. According to the petitioner she was employed permanently in Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Karachi popularly known as "Radio Pakistan", for the last 13 years. She had performed duties in different sections of broadcasting namely forces programme, talks section and school broadcast section. She commenced these programmes in the year 1960 and since then she was working continuously for the respondent No.

3. She was initially given a salary of Rs. 130.00 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 200.00 per month. When Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation took over this organisation they introduced new scales and grades of pay and increased the emoluments of the workers. According to her the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting fixed her pay in the grade of Rs. 600.00 per month plus allowances. She was to be paid Rs. 600.00 per month in October 1973 but the respondent No. 3 did not pay her the emoluments at this rate for the month of October 1973. In the month of November 1973 also she was not paid her salary at this rate and therefore she represented to the Regional Director who did not care to listen to her. However, she continued working and in December 1973, instead of giving her salary according to new scales she was verbally dismissed from service without assigning any reasons therefore.

3. She sent a grievance notice on 1st January, 1974 but no reply was received by her. She thus filed an application before the Junior Labour Court No. V under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 praying for her re-instatement which was allowed and it was ordered by the Junior Labour Court that she should be re-instated with full back benefits. The Junior Labour Court held that although the petitioner was engaged on contract basis but she was getting these contracts regularly and therefore she was covered by the definition of workman employed on permanent basis. It further held that her services could not be terminated with gut giving a notice and assigning any explicit reasons therefore. Since no notice was given to her by the respondent No. 3 and no reasons were assigned for the termination of her services therefore it ordered her re-instatement in service.

4. The award of the Junior Labour Court was challenged in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 before Sind Labour Court No. V who vide its decision dated 23rd April 1974, set aside the award of the Junior Labour Court. The Labour Court held that she was a casual artist performing various programmes offered to her by the Corporation but she was not a permanent employee getting a monthly salary. She used to be paid her fees for the performances given by her. It accordingly held that the petitioner was a workman and had no guaranteed or secured right and could not therefore pursue her remedy before the Junior Labour Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly argued that although the petitioner worked on contract basis but the duties she performed were of permanent nature and therefore she was a permanent employee. I am unable to agree with this argument because there is wide difference between the contracts continuously given to a person and a per manent employment. In petitioner's case she was given contracts permanently A for about 13 years but she was never employed by Radio Pakistan or sub sequently by the respondent No. 3 on permanent or temporary basis. She has produced a certificate as Annexure 'A' to support her contention that she was permanent employee in Radio Pakistan in 1960. The certificate reads as under :

"Certified that Mrs. Safia Shabnam Ghani works in this office as an announcer and drama voice on monthly consolidated contract and her monthly emoluments come to Rs. 130.00 only approximately." From this certificate it is evident that the petitioner was not an employee of Radio Pakistan. She was only given contracts from which she used to earn Rs. 130.00 per month approximately. Her nature of engagement with the respondent No. 3 was therefore on contract basis and not on the basis of permanent or temporary employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the remuneration paid to a workman may be different but if the nature of duties are permanent the workman would be considered to be permanent employee. I agree with this contention that even casual workers can in most of the cases fall in the definition of permanent or temporary workman but the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from such workers. She was exclusively engaged on contract basis and therefore only by virtue of the fact that these contracts were continuously given to her for about 13 years she cannot be termed as a permanent or temporary employee because from the very inception she was not employed by the respondent No. 3 on permanent or temporary basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that she admittedly used to sign the Attendance Register. The signing of the Attendance Register is no test to find whether a person is a permanent employee or works on contract basis. Since she was performing the programmes continuously therefore she might have been required by the management to sign the Attendance Register so that it may be found whether she was available in the Radio Station to perform her duties or not.

6. The petitioner has not produced any letter of appointment either before the Labour Courts or this Court and when questioned to produce any such document at this stage she showed her inability to produce any letter of appointment issued to her either by the Radio Pakistan or by the respondent No.

3. She has simply placed reliance on the above-referred certificate an on the fact that she performed her duties continuously for over 13 years by virtue of which she was a permanent employee. I find that this contention is devoid of force and is therefore repelled.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court dated 23rd April, 1974, which is hereby upheld and the petition is dismissed. The parties are however left to bear their own costs. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.