1995 PLP 240 (PLC)

Abdul Waheed for Appellant. Ghulam Sabir for Respondents. This judgment will dispose of the connected Appeals .. No.192/93 "Ghulam Akbar v. Divisional Engineer, T & T etc.", No.193/93 "Ghulam Habib v. Divisional Engineer, T & T etc.", and No. 194/93 "Samiullah v. Divisional Engineer T and T etc." as they arise from a common judgment of the learned Labour Court dated 26‑10‑1993 whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed. The appellants feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment have challenged its validity in appeal in this Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were employed in the establishment of the respondents as Wiremen and served as such for about 3/4 years. Their services were terminated on 4‑5‑1992 vide Exh. PW‑1/2 on the ground that their services were no more required as trained persons were recruited in their stead. They served grievance notice but futile. Thereafter, they filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court which were contested by the respondents by filing written statement. The stand of the petitioners was that they had served for more than three years and have thus attained the status of permanent workmen whereas the respondents denied the status of the petitioners being workmen. The learned Presiding Officer Labour Court dismissed the grievance petitions of the petitioners and resultantly they filed the present appeal. Both the learned counsel were heard and record perused. The appellant‑petitioners served continuously for more than three years in the respondent's establishment although it is in the statement of RW‑1 Falak Taj as well as in the statement of RW‑2 Faqir Muhammad that the appellants were issued fresh appointment letter intermittently but it will not nullify the status of the appellants as permanent workmen because their this very admission shows that the posts against which the appellants were working were of permanent nature and as such the fresh appointments were not more than eye‑wash to evade the law. Moreover, it is not understandable that if the posts against which appellants were employed required training then why untrained persons were employed previously. The performance of the appellants for more than three years against these posts shows that they were capable to run them. It was the duty of the respondents to have sent the appellants for training. The appellants cannot be held responsible for the fault of the respondents. The appellants were permanent workman in the respondent's establishment and while dispensing with their services it was incumbent upon the respondents to have adopted the procedure laid down in Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance which lays down that" For termining employment of a permanent workman, for any reason other than misconduct, one month's notice shall be give either by the employer or the workman. One month's wages calculated on the basis of average wages earned by the workman during the last three months shall be paid in lieu of notice". The learned Presiding Officer Labour Court failed, to see to this aspect of the case. Consequently, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appellants are reinstated in service with full back benefits and wages. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./185/Lb. N Appeal Accepted