1997 PLP 616 (PLC)

1984 PLC 919; 1986 PLC 1166 and 1993 PLC 537 ref. Shabbir Ahmad Bhutta for Appellant. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1996. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7‑12‑1994 pronounced by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, disposing of the grievance petition, filed on 12‑12‑1993 under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Zafar Iqbal Khan. .

2. Claiming that he had been appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Adam Sugar Mills, Chishtian, for the season 1979‑80, Zafar Iqbal Khan alleged that the mill people did not allow him to join duty during the season 1993‑94, and the reason was that he was an active trade unionist and a member of the Executive of the C.B.A. His services, according to him, were dispensed with, without observance of the formalities, prescribed by the Labour Laws, as issuance of show‑cause notice and charge‑sheet, followed by a domestic enquiry. The petition was contested by the respondent concern, as according to him, the petitioner was not a workman and no guaranteed or secured right of the employee had been violated. In this regard, the learned lower Court has rightly referred to an admission made by the respondent in the reply, stating that the petitioner was a seasonal worker. It was, however, maintained that he had not been ousted from service but he had himself abstained for reporting for duty, on the commencement of the season. The petitioner presented an application for assuming duty on 10‑4‑1994 and he was allowed to do so. Petition Exh. R. 1 produced by the petitioner bears this order; and it is thus clear that before the expiry or conclusion of the season 1993‑94, Zafar Iqbal had joined duty.

3. In so far as the question of Zafar Iqbal's entitlement to back benefits is concerned, it has been concluded by the learned lower Court, by referring to proviso II to Order 14 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968; that it was certainly not mandatory for the establishment to have addressed communication to the employee by registered post and it was enough if he got the information even otherwise, say, through ordinary posts. The learned Labour Court is of the view that the incidence that Zafar Iqbal Khan, as he claims, had been going to mill premises prior to 13‑10‑1993, for joining duty, would demonstrate that he was aware of the fact of the mill being open and his post being available for assumption of duty. The perusal of the evidence led by Zafar Iqbal in the lower Court gives the impression that he had himself been on the look‑out or had been inventing excuses for his absence from duty during the season in question, and has only endeavored to assail the communication as irregular, although the same was sent to him, and it is not denied. The reason for lack of interest in the job on his part probably was that he had got a Yellow Cab, under the Prime Minister's Self‑Employment Scheme, about a year ago, and the same continued to be in his possession and use. The statement made to the effect that he had, however, not been operating it, as it A had gone out of order, is not to be believed. He must be assumed to have been earning handsomely by running the vehicle and could not, therefore, be held to have entitlement to back benefits. Reliance by the respondent has rightly been placed in this regard on 1984 PLC 919 (Plat); 1986 PLC 1166 (Lahore High Court) and 1993 PLC 537 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh).

4. So far as his reinstatement in service was concerned, he had already succeeded in securing it, as the establishment had not opposed it, and had rather invited him to come and join duty, which he did on 11‑4‑1994. The findings arrived at by the learned lower Court thus were not in no way lacunic or faulty. I would endorse the decision. The appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./884/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.