' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide FAOs Nos.51 to 55 of 2004 as common questions are involved and, in fact, the learned Labour Court has decided all the five matters by means of a common judgment.
2. These cases rather have a chequered history. It was on 5-9-1991 and 3-9-1991 the appellants in all these cases filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, seeking a declaration that they are regular and confirmed employees of the respondent-Department w,e,f, 1973. The admitted facts of these cases are that all the appellants are continuing in service of the respondents since the year 1975. However, they are being paid on work-charge basis out of contingent fund and the posts against which they are working are not permanent. Another important aspect of the matter is that earlier the services of the appellants were terminated in the year 1977. They filed grievance petitions which were allowed by a learned Labour Court on 27-8- 1978 and these judgments were upheld by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 30-7- 1982. The proceedings were conducted in the petitions and these were dismissed by means of a common judgment on 8-10-1989. Appeals filed by the appellants were allowed by the learned Appellate Tribunal on 13-12-1989 and the cases were remanded back for fresh decision after recording evidence. Thereafter, the petitions were again dismissed by means of a common judgment dated 3-9-1991. This time the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal allowed all the appeals on 18-11-1991 and granted the relief claimed. W.P. No,1089/92 was filed by the respondent which was allowed by this Court on 11-6-1999 and the appeals were remanded back. These are the appeals so remanded which have now been transferred to this Court under the provisions of the I.R.O., 2002.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends with reference to the case of Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman and others (2002 SCM R 836) that they are entitled to the relief prayed for by them. No one has turned up for the respondents who have been duly served and are represented by a learned counsel whose name duly stands reflected in the cause list for today. All the five catles have been repeatedly called but no one has turned up for the respondents. They are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
4. Now as stated by me above, the material facts are admitted. The learned Labour Court has recorded its judgment dated 3-9-1991 with reference to the cases of Muhammad Bashir and 3 others v. Executive Engineer, Kabirwala Drainage Division, Faisalabad (1989 PLC 349) and Ghulam Muhammad and 12 others v. Executive Engineer, Trimu Barrage Division Irrigation Department and another (1989 PLC 604) that notwithstanding the length of service, in view of Rule 1.131 of the Public Works Department Code, Chapter-I, it cannot be held that the appellants are permanent or regular employees.
5. The learned Labour Court has, however, completely lost sight of the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants were appointed against any specific Project and as to whether the said Project is still continuing or stands completed.
6. The learned Labour Court has also conveniently ignored the admitted unchallenged position on record that the appellants were earlier dismissed from service and were ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court and the judgment was affirmed by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal.
7. Now coming to the judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, I find it to be on all fours, attracted to the facts of the present case. Their Lordships took note of Rule 1.131; thoroughly examined the same with reference to its peculiar composition and proceeded to hold that the said Rule would not be applicable where there was no evidence that the employment was for a specific Project or for sub-work for a specific Project. The opinion expressed was that the said Rule 1.131 of Chapter-I of the said Rules cannot be interpreted and stretched to the extent of declaring the respondents before their Lordships as work-charge employees. The following observations were recorded in the operative part in para-12 of the judgment at pages 848 and 849 of the report:-- "12. In the light of what has been stated above the respondents who are neither "civil servants" nor "work-charged employees" can invoke the provisions of I.R.O. For the redressal of their grievances being "permanent workers " . The Secretary, Irrigation Department may examine each case on its own merits keeping in view the tenure of service and nature of job and the respondents who are employed against any specific Project or to whom rule 1.131 of Chapter I of the said Rules is applicable (guidelines provided at paragraphs 7 and 8) and their services may be terminated after completion of all the legal formalities.
8. For all that has been discussed above, all these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 3-9-1991 of the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9 Multan, camp at Muzaffargarh is set aside and it is held that the appellants are permanent workers and are entitled to be declared as such w,e,f, the dates of institution of the grievance petitions. No orders as to costs.
9. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the respondents in these cases.