' This order shall decide FAO No,202/04 to FAO No,228/04 as these proceed against a common judgment passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9 Multan.
2. The private respondents in all these cases are employed with the appellant. They felt aggrieved of an order dated 31-10-1995 passed by the appellant terminating their service. They filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, before the learned Labour Court stating that the termination is illegal and praying for reinstatement. The appellant in all these cases took the plea that the respondents are work charge employees and are not workmen and as such they do not have any secured or guaranteed right which can be enforced through the grievance petitions. It was further stated that the appellant has its own Service Rules or Regulations and provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, are not applicable. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Labour Court vide judgment dated 18-6-2002 accepted all the petitions and reinstated the respondents with 50% back-benefits. Both the parties felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals filedby the appellant were allowed on 18-10-2002 and the case was remanded back to decide the point as to whether the respondents being recorded as work charged employees can attain the status of permanent employees despite their acceptance of terms and conditions under Rules 1.07 to 1.09 of B&R Code. The appeals filed by the respondents were disposed of with the observation that the question of back-benefits will be re-decided. After the remand, some more evidence was recorded. Vide judgment dated 24-9-2004 all the petitions were accepted and the respondents were ordered to be reinstated in service but without back-benefits. It was further directed that the respondents would be entitled to receive the pay/emoluments as regular employees of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondents having been employed on work charged basis cannot be regularized for the simple reason that no such posts are available with the appellant. Further contends that the learned Labour Court has not given any time for implementing the judgment.
4. I have examined the impugned judgment, with the assistance of the learned _counsel. After the remand, the matter was to be decided as per directives of the learned Appellate Tribunal who had formulated the questions which were to be decided. Now, it has been found as a fact by the learned Labour. Court that at the time the respondents were appointed, the Rules 1.07, 1.08 and 1.09 of the Buildings and Roads (B&R) Code had not been adopted by the appellant. This factual aspect has not been controverted by the learned counsel. This being so, the rigours ' of the said Rules cannot be held to be applicable to the service of the respondents. It is also an admitted position that no statutory Rules apply to the service in Multan Development Authority. This being so, upon a finding that the respondents are permanent workmen within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, they would be governed by the said Standing Orders. Besides, it has been observed in the impugned judgment and the learned counsel for the appellant admits that notwithstanding the setting aside of the earlier judgment of the learned Labour Court, the respondents, in fact, are employed with the appellant and are continuing in service.
5. The respondents are employed as Beldars, Malies, Mates, Carpenters, Mason/Mistry, Electricians and Chaukidars in Buildings, Parks and Roads Department of the appellant. There is no denial that the Roads, Buildings and the Parks very much exist and continue to exist and as such being regularly maintained ever since the employment of the respondents with the appellant. To my mind nothing wrong is to be found with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court within theparameters stated by the learned Court of appeal in the earlier round, to the effect that the respondents do fall within the category on permanent workmen. Consequently, they are to be treated as regular employees.
6. I, however, do agree with the learned counsel that it will take some time to complete the process of regularization, I, therefore, direct the appellant to complete the regularization process within a reasonable period of time but not exceeding six months from today. With this latter direction, all the FAOs are dismissed in limine.