1993 PLP 880 (PLC(CS))

Ainuddin for Appellant. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against as impugned order, dated 22‑3‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been employed as postman on 17‑12‑1985 and had continued to work as such till 6‑6‑1986 and vide letter, dated 7‑6‑1986, he was informed to have been ousted from service with immediate effect. Being aggrieved the respondent filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

3. The appellants department resisted the petition on the ground that firstly, that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to the working of the Post Office Department because of the bar contained under the proviso of subsection (4) of section 1 of the said Ordinance and secondly, the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary and on a long basis. It was further claimed by the appellant department that the respondent was appointed on the post vacated by one Farid Ahmad on his promotion as Sorting Postman and subsequently it was filled in by some other deserving person, hence, the respondent, was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties led their evidence and they were duly cross‑examined and thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ainuddin, the learned Advocate for the appellant Department and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that it has been the consistent view of this Tribunal that the provisions of section 1(2)(b) of I.R.O., 1969 are also applicable to the employments of Post, Telegraph and Telephone Department, even if the same are carried on or by the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government where no Statutory Rules of service etc. were I applicable to the workmen employed. Therefore, I find it needless to repeat the same. It is again an admitted position that the respondent was temporarily appointed against a vacancy of permanent nature on 16‑12‑1985 which had fallen vacant on account of promotion of one Farid Ahmad, where the respondent had worked till 17‑6‑1986 and had served in the department of more than 6 months. Therefore, I would hold that the respondent had attained the right to be permanently appointed on the said post and it was not lawful or justified for the appellant to have appointed another person against this vacant post on alleged ground of being found deserving particularly after the expiry of two months from the date of removal of the respondent. I have also carefully gone through all the case‑laws which had been relied upon by Mr. Ainuddin, the learned Advocate for the appellant Department and I would respectfully hold here that all these are distinguishable and not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the respondent has added nothing new in support of his case, what he had already submitted before the learned Labour Court, in view of this legal and factual position, I would hold that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and it must be maintained.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent Munir Ahmad is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the appellant‑Department before this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent after due verification. M.Y.H./1172/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.