1971 PLC 84 (PLP)

The cases are similar and have been raised against the same second party for the same type of administrative action that the second party took that is, termination of services of all, these 7 workers. So the 7 cases would be disposed of together by the same judgment: The case of the first parties is that they were employed in the month of August 1968, at a monthly pay of Rs, 150,

00. However, taking the goodness of these 7 workers the second party did not give them full pay but less than Rs. 150.00 from December 1968 to March.1969. Hence they claim the payment of the difference of wages. . Their services were finally terminated on 22-2‑70 without giving them full termination benefit of permanent workers. Hence, these applications after complying with the grievance procedure. The second party entered into appearance and filed written Statement wherein they submitted‑ that the cases are not maintainable in view of .the fact that the worker were given full termination benefits as per provisions of section 19(3) .the Act. They were temporary, workers and were appointed for a limited period for completion, of a project. There cannot be any question of giving them termination benefits as could be given to a permanent worker. Point for determination in the present cases: What reliefs, if any, the first parties are entitled to under tile provisions of the Act? On hearing both the parties it appears to us that the appointment letters issued to the workers in the present case in the month of April 1969 clearly stated that the work was of temporary nature and it vas supposed to last for about 2 years only. From the definition of temporary worker as we can find from section 2(s), we find that in view of the nature of the A work which was a contract in the present case between the Government of East Pakistan and the second party, the work could not but be of temporary nature and as such, the workers could not be employed oil permanent basis and this fact was noted in their appointment letters. Thus the workers being temporary workers, they could only claim benefits which are payable to the temporary workers. It is admitted that the workers were given one month's pay at the time of their termina tion of services and according to section 19(3) this is the benefit they are entitled to. As about the difference of pay it has been pointed out that that appointment letters were issued in the month of April 1969 when the workers approached the second party for formal appointment letters. This fact has been noted in the copy of the appointment letter and also in the original appointment letters. Before April 1969 they were given lesser pay than Rs. 150.00. It is not' the: case of the first parties that from April 1959 they were givers less than Rs. 150'

00. When it is established that the appointment letters were issued in the month of April 1969, the case that they were paid less than Rs. 150.00 before that is a matter between the parties only when it is found that the minimum ‑wages in the. Province is Rs. 125.00 per month. We, cannot force the second party to pay them whatever the first party now' demand on the basis of a post‑dated appointment letter. The explanation given by the lawyer for the second party appears to be adequate and according to rule these workers were given .3 increments during a period of one year and a half so that their pay was raised from Rs. 125'00 to Rs. 150 00 per month. It appears that the applications of the first parties are motivated by illicit gain. So these applications fare bound to be dismissed. Hence these 7 (seven) Cases Nos. 132, 133, 134, 135, 1361 146 and 162.of 1970 are dismissed on contest, but without costs. Members on consultation agree with my decision above: This order will govern all the seven cases.