2002 PLP 133 (PLC)

Mehmood Abdul Ghani for Respondent No.

1. In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:‑‑ "The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare the act of termination of the petitioner's employment on 1‑4‑1994 and the impugned order dated 8‑8‑1996 as having been passed illegally, without authority and in violation of the provisions of law and consequently are of no legal effect or force. The petitioner further prays that the orders of respondent No.3 be upheld and the petitioner be reinstated with full back benefits as declared and decided by the learned respondent No.3." Today, an application for adjournment has been received duly signed by Mr. A. D. Cruz. On 16‑8‑2000 an order was passed that in view of the numerous adjournments have been taken by Mr. A.D. Cruz no further adjournment would be given and that if he would not present then the matter will proceed in his absence. Thereafter, he had taken two further adjournments before other Benches. The adjournment application is dismissed and Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, for the respondent No.1 is directed to proceed with the matter. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, objected to the maintainability of this Constitutional petition, ground was that it suffered from laches inasmuch as it was filed after about 8 months of the order/decision of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. In support of his contention he referred us to the case of Haq Nawaz Baloch v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal: and 2 others (1992 PLC 297) wherein this Court has held that an unexplained delay of 8 months in filing the Constitutional petition by a workman would be fatal to the Constitutional petition and it was liable to be dismissed. On merit, Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani submitted that the petitioner was employed as a temporary workman in the establishment of respondent No.1 against a post which was a temporary in nature as, was evident from Annexures A/1 and, A/2, attached alongwith the petition. He further, submitted that the services of a temporary workman could be dispensed with without assigning any reason when it was found that either the work for which he was employed had been completed or that the post for which he was employed was no longer required to be continued. He further submitted that even if assuming that the petitioner has continued to serve in the establishment of the respondent of more than 3 months, such fact would itself not entitle the petitioner to the claim of having become a permanent worker unless it could be established that the work for which a temporary worker was employed was of `permanent nature and was not likely to be concluded in nine months. In such a situation, according to Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, the worker would not be entitled to the benefits of explicit reasons for his dismissal provided by Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. In support of his above contentions, he has placed reliance on the cases of Pakistan International 'Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No.5 and others (PLD 1980 SC 323) and Muhammad Yaqoob v. The Punjab Labour Court No.1 and 5 others (1990 SCMR 1539). In both the aforesaid cases the Supreme Court pronounced that a workman, who was employed on a temporary basis, would not become a permanent workman if the work for which he was employed and which was expected to be finished within 9 months continued after the expiry of 9 months. In the latter case, it was categorically pronounced that length of employment by itself would not be a ground or test for determining the nature of work where work of employee was admittedly not of a permanent nature at the time of his initial appointment. We have considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani and have gone through the case‑law relied upon by him in support of his above contentions. We have also gone through the material on record especially the decision of the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The aforesaid points were also raised before the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion from the decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. "...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 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 any 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 Durab Patel, J., in the case of Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No.5 and others PLD 1980 SC

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 permanent 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." A perusal of the above, observations made by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal leaves no room for doubt with regard to the issues relating to the nature of employment of the petitioner as well as the nature of job and both of them were temporary in nature. The termination of the petition cannot be said to be illegal or tainted with mala fides. Upon the above discussion, we are satisfied that this Constitutional petition is without any substance and does not merit consideration. Accordingly, it stands dismissed in limine alongwith the application(s) pending therein. H.B.T./H‑57/K Petition dismissed.