Work charge (contractual) employment

2013 SCMR 13 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 185(3)Work charge (contractual) employmentEmployee working on work charge basis claiming to be a regular employee

Employment on work charge (contractual) basis, irrespective of its period of length, not to accord employee status of regular employee

Respondent was initially employed by Health Department as chowkidar (watchman) on a work charge basis but after devolution of said Department all its assets, liabilities and offices were succeeded to the Municipal Administration (petitioner)

Services of respondent were transferred to the Municipal Administration, which paid him regular salary

High Court declared respondent to be a regular employee of the Municipal Administration (petitioner) on grounds of his continuous service for 13 years, since the Municipal Administration failed to show that his employment was contractual

Validity

Record showed that respondent was employed by the Health Department on a work charge basis initially for three months and his employment was extended at regular intervals for three months at a time

Documents placed on record by respondent clearly indicated that his employment with Municipal Administration was also on work charge basis and he was paid for the work he performed

Respondent's employment whether with the Health Department or with the Municipal Administration remained on work charge basis and he was never appointed as a regular employee and his employment on work charge basis, whatever its period of length, would not accord him status of regular employee

High Court had erred in holding the respondent a regular employee simply on account of failure of Municipal Administration to show that his appointment was on a work charge or contractual basis

Respondent had to substantiate his claim for regular appointment and same could not be deemed to have been established on failure of the Municipal Administration to prove the contrary

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgments were set aside and respondent was held not to be a regular employee of the Municipal Administration.

2013 PLC(CS) 377 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 185(3)Work charge (contractual) employmentEmployee working on work charge basis claiming to be a regular employee

Employment on work charge (contractual) basis, irrespective of its period of length, not to accord employee status of regular employee

Respondent was initially employed by Health Department as chowkidar (watchman) on a work charge basis but after devolution of said Department all its assets, liabilities and offices were succeeded to the Municipal Administration (petitioner)

Services of respondent were transferred to the Municipal Administration, which paid him regular salary

High Court declared respondent to be a regular employee of the Municipal Administration (petitioner) on grounds of his continuous service for 13 years, since the Municipal Administration failed to show that his employment was contractual

Validity

Record showed that respondent was employed by the Health Department on a work charge basis initially for three months and his employment was extended at regular intervals for three months at a time

Documents placed on record by respondent clearly indicated that his employment with Municipal Administration was also on work charge basis and he was paid for the work he performed

Respondent's employment whether with the Health Department or with the Municipal Administration remained on work charge basis and he was never appointed as a regular employee and his employment on work charge basis, whatever its period of length, would not accord him status of regular employee

High Court had erred in holding the respondent a regular employee simply on account of failure of Municipal Administration to show that his appointment was on a work charge or contractual basis

Respondent had to substantiate his claim for regular appointment and same could not be deemed to have been established on failure of the Municipal Administration to prove the contrary

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgments were set aside and respondent was held not to be a regular employee of the Municipal Administration.