1995 PLP 539 (PLC)

Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1994. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑ This is petition for leave to appeal by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.1888 of 1983.

2. Facts giving rise to the petition briefly stated are that Muhammad Zulfiqar Shakir respondent No.3 herein was appointed as Field Supervisor by the petitioners/Corporation on 25‑6‑1980 on temporary basis. He continued to serve the Department satisfactorily when his services were terminated on 30‑7‑1981 by the Manager Farm Advisory Service, on the ground that his services were no more needed. On receipt of the notice of termination of his services respondent served a grievance notice on the petitioners alleging that he was a permanent workman and as such his services could not be terminated without a show‑cause notice. As no action was taken on the grievance notice respondent filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court on 20‑10‑1981. This petition was contested by the Department by filing a written statement. The learned Labour Court, however, on its finding that the order of termination was competently passed under Standing Orders Ordinance 12(1)(3). This order was challenged in appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Labour Court and granted relief prayed for in his petition. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was challenged in Constitution petition before the learned Lahore High Court which was dismissed by the judgment against which leave to appeal is prayed for..

3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent was appointed on "work charge basis" to supervise wheat procurement which is of seasonal character; that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance; that respondent's letter of appointment was issued by an officer who was not empowered; that the order of termination was legal; that the respondent had been paid his remuneration from contingency showing the character of his appointment have been fully dealt with elaborately by the Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as by the learned High Court in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the record placed on the file.

4. The learned High Court finding no substance in the aforementioned contentions, which are reiterated before us, held as under:‑‑ "There is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel that the respondent was a temporary workman inasmuch as no such objection was never taken by the petitioner in his written statement. Even otherwise, the appointment letter Annexure `A' would demonstrate that he was appointed on 25‑6‑1980 and that his services were terminated on 20‑7‑1981. In other words, the respondent had been working on his job beyond six months to the satisfaction of the Corporation. There was also no complaint against him. This being so, he became a permanent workman in the petitioner‑corporation within the meanings of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 against a permanent job. The learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the respondent was a permanent workman under the petitioner. This is, undoubtedly, a finding of fact, having been given by the learned Appellate Tribunal on the basis of reliable evidence which cannot be interfered with in these proceedings."

5. For the reasons we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court refusing to interfere with the finding of fact reached by the learned Appellate Tribunal which finding is based on proper appraisal of the evidence of the parties. We, accordingly, refuse to grant leave to appeal and dismiss the petition. A.A./P‑265/S Leave refused.