Permanent workman

Company /Establishment filed constitutional petition as the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) re-instated the respondents concluding that the respondents (thirteen in number) had produced sufficient material to show that they were permanent workers who had been working in petitioner /establishment as workers for the last several years

Validity

Record, revealed that the respondents only produced the I.D Card / attendance card issued by the petitioner /company where they were shown to be casual workers

Evidence adduced by respondents also revealed their certain adverse admissions relating to different respondents (as grievance petitioners) like not attaching the copy of the I.D card, not signing the grievance petition, no authority letter, casual workers written on the duty card, not being aware whether grievance notices were sent to the petitioner company or otherwise and not signing power of attorney

Thus, entire burden ought not to have been shifted upon the petitioner / company alone by the NIRC, whereas the respondents were set free as they failed to prove through cogent material that they rendered their services for the petitioner / company for more than nine months as required under the law

In the absence of such material, the petitioner / company could not be directed to reinstate their services which were of a temporary nature

National Industrial Relations Commission had erroneously granted the benefit of reinstatement of service to the respondents by holding that the respondents fall within the definition of permanent 'workmen', which findings were based on guesswork, conjectures and suffered from misreading of evidence and record, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice

High Court set-aide impugned orders passed by NIRC

Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Establishment, was allowed, in circumstance.

Company / Establishment filed constitutional petition as the National Industrial Relations Commission re-instated the respondents

Held, that definition 2(g) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, ('the Ordinance, 1968') provides the classification of the workman, which is sub-divided into six categories i.e. (i) permanent, (ii) probationers, (iii) badlis, (iv) temporary, (v) apprentice and (vi) contract workers

A temporary workman is defined in the Schedule to the Ordinance, 1968 as a workman who has been engaged for work of a temporary nature, which is likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months

The protection of the, daily wagers who have been performing their duties against permanent posts for a long period is Para 1(b) of the Schedule attached to the Ordinance, 1968

Standing Order 12 of the Ordinance 1968 provides that no temporary workmen (whether monthly rated, weekly rated daily rated or piece rated and no probational or badali shall be entitled to any notice if his services are terminated by the employer, nor shall any such workman be required to give any notice or pay wages in lieu thereof to the employer if he leaves the employment of his own accord

However, the situation is quite different than the permanent workman under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance, 1968

Thus, NIRC had erroneously granted the benefit of reinstatement of service to the respondents by holding that the respondents fell within the definition of permanent 'workmen', which findings were based on guesswork, conjectures and suffered from misreading of evidence and record, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice

High Court set-aide impugned orders passed by NIRC

Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Establishment, was allowed, in circumstance.

Employees continuously working for long time against permanent posts become eligible to be regularized.

Salary of the employee was stopped, despite the fact that he was performing his duties and no termination order had been issued to him

Grievance petition filed by the employee having been dismissed by the Labour Court

Counsel for the employers had contended that employee along with others was appointed on temporary basis on daily wages

Validity

Record had revealed the employee along with others received salary on monthly basis by means of cheques and cash

Even otherwise in the scheme of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, there was no concept of employment of daily wages

Job/work of the employee was not temporary in nature, which was to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months, but it was a permanent job

Employee had gained the status of permanent employee for the reason that he had worked for more than nine months and completed a probationary period of three months satisfactorily without any break

Impugned order of the Labour Court was set aside, with direction to release the salaries of the employee from the date when same were stopped, which would continue in future according to law.

Services of appellant having been terminated, appellant filed grievance petition, which having been dismissed, he had filed appeal before the High Court

Grievance petition was dismissed on the grounds that appellant was not a permanent workman and that West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was not applicable as number of permanent employees ,in the employer-establishment, was less than 20

Evidence on record had proved that appellant was a permanent worker of the establishment

Appellant in his affidavit in evidence had stated that establishment was employing more than 30 employees

Said assertion of appellant weht unrebutted/unchallenged as the management did not examine any witness to controvert assertion/plea of appellant or to substantiate its own stand regarding number of employees in the establishment

Contention of establishment that provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance were not applicable, was devoid of force

Labour Court had committed an error to observe that for claiming the status of a permanent workman, appellant should have produced his service card for each year as it was neither the requirement of law nor did it appeal to reason

Impugned order passed by the Labour Court was set aside and appellant was reinstated in service with back-benefits.