1989 PLC 414 (PLP)

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 3‑5‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The facts are that the respondent was employed as badli conductor in 1983. His services were terminated on 28‑4‑1986 when he had asked for being made permanent. The respondent brought grievance petition for his reinstatement on the ground that his services were terminated orally. The plea taken by the appellant was that the respondent had become surplus but no documentary evidence was produced. Even if it be said for the sake of arguments that the respondent had become surplus, his services could be terminated by observing the rule of first come last go but the appellant failed to prove this fact also. Since the respondent served for three years, this is not believable that he was employed only as a badli conductor. Rule is that a badli is appointed when a permanent employee goes on leave or is not available temporarily for some other reason. This cannot be believed that a permanent conductor went on three years leave. In order to prevent the employees from becoming permanent, they are usually shown to have been employed as badli conductors, whereas actually the vacancy is permanent. The respondent, therefore, on the completion of probationary period became permanent.. As mentioned above, the appellant failed to prove that any post of conductor was abolished and that the respondent being junior most was terminated for this reason. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service.

3. Many objections were raised in the written statement but since the judgment of the learned lower Court is silent on those points, it appears that they were not pressed. The said points have not been argued even before me. The points taken in the written statement are that the appellant establishment had been declared as essential service under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act,‑ 1952 and. that he was estopped from claiming the right of permanent employee. There is no notification on the record to show that ever the Punjab Road Transport Corporation was declared as essential service.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has in reality contested the decision of the learned lower Court on the point of back benefits. He has argued that since the respondent did not urge in his statement that he remained jobless during the period he remained out of service, he is not entitled to back benefits. But this is not correct. In his statement on oath the respondent has urged that he was jobless ever since his services were terminated. Neither he was cross‑examined on the point, nor any evidence in rebuttal was produced. The solitary witness Naveed‑ul- Hasan (RW‑1) did not depose anything in this respect. Thus, the back benefits too have been rightly allowed to the respondent by the learned lower Court

5. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. M.Y.H./569/Lb.P. Appeal dismissed.