1995 PLP 69 (PLC)

2. The respondent resisted the petition protesting that he had been removed in accordance with law and also that it was also time‑barred.

3. The petitioner was his own witness while Abdul Qadir, Administrative Officer appeared on behalf of the respondents.

4. The Labour Court finding both the issues against the respondent allowed the petition with full back benefits resulting in this appeal.

5. The contention in regard to the appeal being time‑barred was rather tortious and based on presumption but as the same has not been repeated here, it is not necessary to anim‑advert to the same. The only question therefore which remains to consider is whether the respondent's termination from service is in order.

6. Standing Order 1(d) defines a Badli worker as follows:‑‑ "A Badli is a workman who is appointed in the post of a permanent workman or petitioner who is temporarily absent."

7. A permanent workman has been defined as follows:‑‑ "A permanent workman' is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness, accident; leave, lock?out, strike (not being an illegal lock‑out or strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a Badli who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty‑three days during any period of twelve consecutive months."

8. The latter part of this definition obviously is not applicable and all that remains to see is whether the respondent had put in service for a continuous period of three months. Looking to the dates of the appointment and termination it is more than three months. However, the case of the appellant is that it was not continuous. The reason advanced in support of this contention is that he was absent from duty unauthorisedly on six different dates and therefore his tenure of employment falls short of the requisite 90 days of continuous service.

9. This absence of six days finds no place in the reply to the grievance notice, or in the written statement. However the respondent while under cross-examination was confronted with his attendance card and he admitted the existence and the authenticity of the cards. It was however not put to the respondent that he had been unauthorisedly absent for six days. It was further first time in the Affidavit‑in‑Evidence that this unauthorised absence of six days was mooted out. The fact all the same is that Muhammad Abdul Qadir the witness of the appellant has no respect for truth. He admitted in his cross? examination that the postal receipt produced had been tampered in respect of the date as well as the round over the seal of the postal authorities. We have not been told that he had not been paid for these days by producing documentary evidence. Any way according to him the word A/L on the relevant dates means absence/leave. The card has certain abbreviated words inserted thereon against attendance of various dates. He has however not bothered to explain what these abbreviated words A/L OFF C/L S/L FH mean. It is A/L which is claimed to stand for unauthorisedly absence. But according to the learned Presiding Officer it could also stand for absent/leave and he had found support for the same from the words in the testimony of Abdul Qadir where he had said that "it is a fact that whenever leave was availed by the applicant they availed the leave after obtaining, submitting the application." I have no reason to reach any other conclusion.

10. Mr. Puri has referred to the case of Mubeen v. Hussain Textile Mills Limited, Karachi 1982 PLC 195 wherein it was held that unauthorised absence will apply as a break to the continuity of the period of 90 days. However the contrary view was taken by the same learned Chairman in an earlier case namely Zahir Shah v. Hussain Textile Mills 1980 PLC 353 wherein it was held that a Badli worker continuously employed for three months becomes permanent and a leave of some days would not make it not continuous. I agree with this latter view.

11. It is alleged that the petitioner was a Badli for a workman, who admittedly was a permanent workman. It was put to Abdul Qadir as to for whom he was doing the Badli duties. He could not name him. That is found to be missing in the letter which must have been despatched in all tranquility. Apparently the use of the word Badli was a mere fig leaf to cover their indefensible stand.

12. A badli worker would attain the status of a permanent worker if he had satisfactorily completed three months' probation. (See M/s. Taj Company Limited v. Zafar Iqbal 1991 PLC 576). The respondent had done that. I have therefore reached the conclusion that the order is not open to any exception. In the result I will affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2363/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.