1997 PLP 392 (PLC)

Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No. V PLD 1980 SC 323 ref. Syed Wazarat Hussain Zaidi for Appellant. Muhammad Ayub Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of one Haider Zaman filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. and directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent Haider Zaman was employed as a helper on temporary basis in the factory of the appellant. After a period of six months, the services of the respondent were terminated allegedly on completion of the special undertaking for manufacture of gloves. The appointment order dated 29‑9‑1993 shows that Haider Zaman was appointed as temporary helper on monthly wages of Rs.800 plus 200 allowances. The appointment being purely of temporary nature and on completion of the work the services to be terminated without any further notice or any notice pay. The respondent accepted these terms and started working as a temporary helper. On 31‑3‑1994 his services were terminated by order in writing as they were no more required and he was allowed to recover his legal dues.

3. It is the case of the management that Haider Zaman was engaged as helper by the Clothing Company for the order of manufacture of clothes. On completion of this supply no further orders were received and his services were terminated. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Wazarat Hussain Zaidi Haider Zaman was a temporary worker and his services were lawfully terminated by an order in writing under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. 4.On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ayub Khan for the worker has argued that the services were not terminated by the written order. Regarding the endorsement that the worker refused to accept the written order, the learned Advocate says that it is false endorsement. The letter was then sent by registered post and was also refused and returned undelivered. It is, therefore, evident that the written order of 31‑3‑1994 copy. of which has been filed is not an afterthought. The Registration Receipt, dated 31st March, 1994 has also been filed. The order of termination in writing is, therefore, genuine. Mr. Muhammad Ayub Khan has next argued that the worker Haider Zaman was a permanent employee, therefore, he could not be terminated, but the .order of appointment shows that he was not appointed as a permanent employee on probation for three months but as a temporary worker under clause (e) of Schedule Standing Order section 2(g) a workman who has been engaged on temporary basis for work likely to be finished within a period of nine months is to be regarded as a temporary worker. In this case it has not been shown that he was doing a work of permanent nature. Onus lies on the worker to show that he was engaged on an assignment of permanent nature. A temporary worker who is assigned work for a period of less than nine months can be terminated without notice and his services can be dispensed l with without any charge‑sheet or stigma. The terms and conditions of service were given in writing on the order of appointment and the respondent had agreed to these terms by signing the order. The terms show that the services to be terminated any time without notice. In this case he has not even continued for nine months. Even where a temporary worker continued for more than nine months he could not be said to have become permanent as held by Dorab Patel, J. in the case of Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No. V PLD 1980 Supreme Court

323. The criterion for becoming a permanent workman is that the work done by him should be of permanent nature and he must have satisfactorily completed the period of probation of three months: Thus, where the workers are employed temporarily for a work which is not of Government nature he cannot become permanent even if he completes the period of nine months due to the work lasting for a longer period than expected.

5. Under the circumstances the respondent cannot claim to be a permanent workman appointed for a lifetime merely because he has worked for more than three months. Even a permanent workman's services can be terminated simpliciter under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance.

6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Labour Court is set aside. The back benefits will be refunded to the appellant. H.B.T./164/Lb.S Appeal allowed.