Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, which is a seasonal factory where the employees are appointed as permanent, seasonal and temporary. Services of seasonal workers are statedly engaged during the crushing season. These workers work during the crushing season and thereafter they are relieved and retrenched until the next crushing season. Son of Respondent No, 2 namely Baber Sher was appointed as pan-mate on 7.12.1997, through appointment letter (Mark-A). He was employed during the season 2002-2003 on 25.11.2002 and his services stood terminated on 16.4.2003. He died on 26.9.2003 at the time when he was statedly not in the employment of the petitioner. Respondent No, 2 moved an application before Respondent No, 1 Commissioner Workmen Compensation Jhang on 26.12.2003, claiming therein an amount of Rs, 2,00,000 as group insurance due to the deceased. Petitioner contested the application, filed his written reply, controverted therein the averments of the application.
Respondent No, 1 vide order dated 8.1.2005 accepted the application and directed the petitioner to pay the claim of group insurance. The order dated 8.1.2005 has been assailed through the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that group insurance is the right of a permanent workman, while the deceased son of Respondent No, 2 was not a workman within the contemplation of Standing Order 1. He added that at the time of death, the deceased was not drawing any wages from the petitioner. His services were retrenched at the relevant time. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Court while passing the impugned order has ignored the material evidence on record. The appointment letter shows his appointment as "pan-mate retainee". It is proved from clearance certificate dated 12.4.2003 that when his services were relieved, he had received his dues. Leave register does not show his attendance. After referring to these documents, learned counsel contended that there was ample evidence on record to show that deceased was retained and not permanent worker.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No, 2, on the other hand, has fully supported the impugned order. He has referred to mark-A (Appointment Letter) and has stated that the appointment letter is with the heading permanent staff, which shows that deceased son of Respondent No, 2 was a permanent employee. He then referred to clause (3) of the appointment letter and has stated that the clause, which provides for a probationary period at the expiry of the said period, an employee is deemed as confirmed. Since the deceased son of Respondent No, 2 completed his probationary period and became confirmed soon on completion of the said period. Learned counsel has drawn attention to Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-5 to show that the retention letter does not contain the signatures of the deceased and such are not binding on Respondent No, 2.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The appointment letter is although with the heading permanent staff but the nature of appointment has been described in the said letter as pan-mate retainee. Clearance certificate dated 12.4.2003 shows that the deceased was relieved and all his dues cleared. The certificate is signed by the deceased. Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-5 are the retention letters which show the retention period on which the petitioner was retained from time to time. Exh. R-2 is the final settlement sheet, showing deceased at Serial No,
12. The deceased has signed the relevant column which also speaks that son of Respondent No, 2 was a seasonal worker. The evidence available on record proves that deceases was a seasonal worker.
6. Standing Order No, 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 the workmen are classified into five categories which are.
1. Permanent
2. Probationers
3. Badlies
4. Temproary
5. Apprentices.
7. Admittedly the deceased was employed on the job of permanent nature and has been employed season after season by the factory and as such he is deemed as a permanent workman. Standing Order 14 provides that in case of a seasonal factory if a workman is retenched at the end of a season, he has the right to be employed at the beginning of the next season. This clearly indicates that when he was retenched at the end of the season he ceased to be an employee of the organization. Standing Order 14 is reproduced as under: Where any number of workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employment any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment he shall be given an opportunity to the retrenched workmen belonging to the category concurred, by sending a notice by registered post to their last known addresses to offer themselves for re- employment, and they shall have preference over the persons, each having priority according to the length of his service under the employer."
The deceased son of Respondent No, 2, being a seasonal workman was offered the job at the beginning of the season and was relieved at the end of such season, which fact is evident, from the perusal of Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-5.
8. Son of the Respondent No, 2 died on 26.9.2003 when he was not 0in the employment of the petitioner which fact is evident from the perusal of the retention letter dated 15.4.2003, the clearance certificate dated 12.4.2003 and final settlement sheet for the season 2002-2003. It has been clearly stipulated in clause 1 of the retention letter that son of Respondent No, 2 was retrenched on 7.6.2003 and it was to continue till the start of next crushing season 2003-2004. The clearance certificate (Exh. R-1) dated 12.4.2003 shows that the services of the deceased were terminated on 16.4.2003 and that there was nothing due to or against the deceased employee. The deceased has signed the clearance certificate which shows that the has accepted his retrenchment. The deceased was thus not a permanent worker at the time of his death and as such was not entitled to the claim of group insurance under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
9. For the foregoing, the instant writ petition is allowed, order dated 8.1.2005 (impugned at this petition) is set aside. No order as to the costs.