1998 PLC 514 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-11-1996 passed by the then learned Member Mr. Agha Saleem Khurshid, whereby he accepted the petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 and the petitioner/respondent shall remain in service with continuity as lineman.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent joined the service with the appellant/department as Lineman on 11-12-1991. He was performing manual, clerical and technical duties assigned to him without any administrative supervisory and managerial powers and falls within the definition of workman under the I.R.O., 1969. His service remained extended till 7-4-1994 when he was appointed without any Limitation of time. The name of the respondent was included in seniority list as well as he was given annual increments as are permissible to other regular employees. The service book of the respondent is also to be maintained. Due to discriminatory attitude the respondent was reverted as Cooli, but the respondent never remained Cooli.

3. On the other hand, the appellants filed written statement and reply to the stay application and contended that the respondent was engaged on work-charge basis and the length of the service will not help him to become a permanent workman. It is further contended on behalf of appellants that the respondent did not ventilate his grievance before the proper forum and the Commission lacks the jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the P.T.C. employees are civil servants and the respondent cannot bring the case of unfair labour practice.

4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of respondent that he was appointed as lineman on 11-12-1991 and his service remained extended till 7-4-1994 when he was appointed without any limitation of time. It is maintained that respondent has attained the status of permanent employee by the operation of law. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the name of the respondent was included in the seniority list. He was also given annual increments as are permissible to other regular employees. It is further submitted that the service book of the respondent is also to be maintained. It is further submitted that the respondent has been dealt with discriminatory attitude by the appellant department and the respondent was reverted as Cooli but the respondent never remained Cooli nor his services could be terminated without applying the prescribed procedure. It is further submitted on, behalf of respondent that the services of juniors to the respondent were regularized but on account of union activities the respondent was treated as discriminatory and it was a case of unfair labour practice on behalf of appellant department and the respondent service should be treated as permanent under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. 1968.

5. We have gone through the record and heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length. We are of the considered view that the respondent has rendered 5 years of service as Lineman he shall be deemed to be a permanent workman according to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 9043 of 1990 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as N.B.P. v. Ali Sher and others. Learned counsel on behalf of respondents has placed reliance on citation 1996 SCMR 1947 in this regard. As regard the case based upon the element of unfair labour practice as defined under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 against the management, the commission has the exclusive jurisdiction and the grievance can be redressed through the N.I.R.C. by bringing some element of unfair labour practice. The appellant department has miserably failed to rebut the contentions raised by the respondent. We are fully convinced that the respondent's services fall within the category of permanent employees and in no case his services can be summarily terminated/reverted and by the length of service he has attained the status of a permanent employee. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of force is dismissed with no order as to costs and we maintain the order of the learned Single Bench dated 13-11-1996. H.B.T./292/N.I.R.C Appeal dismissed.