2000 PLP 109 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S.Os. l (1)(b) & 15(4)‑‑‑Regular workman‑‑Employees even as per documents produced on record by employer, had completed one hundred and eighty days in service of employer‑‑‑Employees, in circumstances, had attained status of 'regular employees and their services could not be terminated without charge‑sheet and inquiry nor they could be asked through verbal orders not to come on duty. Muhammad Asim v. Telecommunication 1997 PLC 1131 ref. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that they were appointed as Junior Pump Operators vide order, dated 14‑11‑1997 and 4‑11‑1997 respectively and their services continued ‑to be extended from time to time and they completed 180 days with or without artificial breaks and thus, in view of the law laid down by Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in 1997 PLC (CS) 1131 in a case titled as 'Muhammad Asim v. Telecommunication' they became permanent employees. It is further argued that his Lordship Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar relying on such case‑law, has accepted the Writ Petitions of WASA work charge employees vide judgment, dated 28‑10‑1998 declaring that the work charge employees, after the expiry of 180 days became permanent and appeal against that judgment was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 14‑4‑1999 and 15‑4‑1999 and thus, the law laid down by the honourable High Court became final and thus, the petitioners became regular employees. According to Supreme Court judgment, dated 14‑4‑1999, given in work charge employee of WASH, it has been held that after the expiry of 90 days, the work charge employees became permanent and in view of such law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioners became regular employees with effect from 14‑2‑1998 and 4‑2‑1998 respectively and their services could not be terminated without charge‑sheet and inquiry nor they could be asked through verbal orders no to come on duty.

2. The respondents through written statement has denied the contentions of the petitioners in a general way without making specific denial, but at the same time has annexed with reply the appointment letters of one of the petitioners namely Shahid Mahmood, whereby his appointment continued to be extended from 4‑11‑1997 to 25‑9‑1998 and contention of the respondent department that the petitioners did not complete 180 days is belied by their own documentary and self‑contradiction in reply and the appointment letters as is apparent on the face of the case. This Commission takes very serious view of such mis‑statement and the irresponsible manner in which the reply has been prepared. In the case of Tahir Mahmood, the respondent Department along with reply has annexed two appointment letters, dated 14‑11‑1997 and 16‑2‑1998 whereby on the admission of the department, he also worked from 14‑11‑1997 to 1‑5‑1998 whereas his counsel has stressed that he also with artificial breaks worked for more than 180 days and thus, in view of the judgment of the Honourable High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑10‑1998, he became permanent employee thereafter. According to Supreme Court judgment, dated 14‑4‑1999, given in WASA work charge employees, after expiry of 90 days both the petitioners became permanent employees.

3. On their own documents of the respondents, annexed with the written statement and contention of the petitioners, it stands proved that the petitioners with or without breaks completed 180 days and thus, they became regular employees thereafter in view of the judgment, dated 28‑10‑1998 of Honourable High Court and they became regular employees after the expiry of 90 days in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paras.

4. Relying on the judgments of Honourable High Court Lahore, dated 28‑10‑1998, and of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 14‑4‑1999 and 15‑.1‑1999, upholding the judgment of Honourable Lahore High Court, dated 28‑10‑1998, with the addition that work charge employees became permanent after 90 days service, the petition is accepted and the respondent Department is directed to treat the petitioners as permanent employees with effect from 13‑2‑1998 and 4‑2‑1998 respectively (after the expiry of 90 days) and pay them salary and other benefits accordingly. Any order/direction of respondent Department of not giving duty to the petitioners treating them to be work‑charge employees after the expiry of 90 days is declared to be illegal and the petitioners are deemed to be on duty as permanent employees after the expiry of 90 days as held by Honourable Supreme Court, because the post against which petitioners were employed, was of permanent nature and after expiry of 90 days period thereof, they became permanent workmen and clearly their services were not liable to be terminated without holding proper inquiry which, admittedly, was not done in this case.

5. To end the agony of the petitioners it is requirement of natural justice that salary for intervening period should be paid within a fortnight, if they are certified to have physically worked. With the above observations, the petition is accepted and consigned to record. H.B.T./347/NIRC ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.