1988 PLP 654 (PLC(CS))

In the appeal captioned above the decision dated 27‑11‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for declaration that they are continuous workers and entitled to overtime in the capacity of such workers, was dismissed.

2. It has been argued by the learned representative of the appellants that in the duty roster Exh.P.l the word 'intermittant' is wrongly given but according to the nature of duties, the appellants fall in the definition of continuous workers. He has also argued that for intermittant workers, the duty hours is twelve with two intervals, but according to the duty roster, the appellants' duty hours is 10 only. The learned lower Court has in this respect said that by way of concession only ten hours duty was being taken from the appellants. The criterion to see whether a particular class of workers is intermittent or continuous, the thing to be seen is not only this as to what is the hour of duty and what is the period of inaction', but it is also to be seen whether they are to give sustained attention or not If there are not two intervals during the duty hours, the appellants may claim the same but cannot come forward for this reason to claim themselves to be continuous workers. The appellants are block maintainers and block cleaners. P.W.1 admitted in cross‑examination that the duty roster Exh.P.1 stands enforced for the last four or five years and previous to it also the duty roster was on the same lines. He also admitted that they ‑were being treated as intermittant workers since the time they joined service. As regard the duties he said in cross‑examination that they performed technical duties for the rectification of signal electric points, telephones, signal batteries, and electric relays etc. He, however, said that he could not specify as to how often a signal and other equipments went out of order. He added that whenever there was any defect, they rectified it and when there is no fault, they sit in the office. It is clear from his statement that the appellants have not to give sustained attention during the period of in‑action. It is clear from the statement of P.W.1 that they have to sit idle waiting for any defect which they may remove. There is no evidence that every now and then some defect develops, nor he said that they had to give sustained attention. Unless it is shown that the employees cannot leave the place of duty during the period of in‑action, it is difficult to say that they are continuous workers. If due to the changing circumstances the nature of duties of the appellants had changed, they may move the concerned authorities for changing their category from intermittant workers to continuous workers, but in the absence of cogent and sufficient evidence, the Courts would be reluctant to effect a change in the rules. Since long the appellants are being treated as intermittent workers and they were not justified in thinking on one fine morning that they may ask the Court to declare them as continuous workers. C The learned lower Court thus was justified in rejecting the grievance petition of the appellants.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E. /106/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.