' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- This judgment shall decide F.A.O. Nos.129 of 2005 to 138 of 2005, as common questions are involved in all these cases. The respondents in all these cases felt aggrieved of verbal orders passed by the appellant terminating their services- as Godown Officers in their establishment and filed petitions under section 25-A of the IRO 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Malian. It was stated that they had been employed with the appellant and working against the post for more than 90 days and as such could not have been removed from service without following the procedure laid down in Standing Order No,12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The appellant filed written statements. The plea taken was that the respondents were not permanent employees. It was also objected that the respondents are neither workers nor workmen within the meaning of IRO, 1969 or the said Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The learned Labour Court recorded evidence of the parties in all these cases. Vide judgments dated 6-5-2005 the petitions were allowed and the respondents were reinstated in service with back-benefits, as directed in the impugned judgments.
2. Mr. Muhammad Jamal, Advocate, for the appellant in all these cases contends that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that the respondents were permanent employees of the appellant-Bank are erroneous. He argues with some vehemence that the learned Labour Court has proceeded to hold the respondents to be workmen, without there being any evidence on record to the said effect. Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana, Advocate for the respondents in all these cases supports the findings of the learned Labour Court that the respondents were permanent employees with reference to judgment in the case of Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another 2005 SCM R 100 and the judgment dated 29-3-2006 of this Court in F.A.O. No,27 of 2005. He however, finds it a bit difficult to answer the 'said second contention of the learned counsel but explains that since the major controversy was as to the nature of relationship between the parties, there was an omission in the matter of leading evidence on the said question as pointed out by Sardar Muhammad Jamal, Advocate.
3. I have gone through the records of all these cases with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now so far as the question of relationship between the parties is concerned, I do find that the impugned judgments are fully supported by the said dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as also the said judgment of this Court and I accordingly uphold the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that the respondents were permanent employees, within the meaning of law, of the appellant/employer. However, I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant when he urges that the observation of the learned Labour Court in the impugned judgments that there is evidence on record to the nature of the duties assigned and being performed by the respondents and that upon an examination of the said evidence the learned Labour Court is satisfied that the respondents are workers/workmen is not at all supported by the record. However, the explanation tendered by the learned counsel for the respondents for the said lapse is not to be ruled out in its entirety. The record does not give this impression that somehow or the other both the parties acted under a belief during the course of trial that the only controversy was as to whether the respondents are permanent employees or not. The result was that none of the parties led any evidence as to the nature of the duties performed by the respondents. All these F.A.Os. Are accordingly allowed; the result would be that the grievance petitions filed by the respondents in all these cases shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan. The records will be remitted back to the said learned Court, who shall summon the parties and give an opportunity to both of them in each case to lead evidence as to the nature of the duties performed by the respondents and after recording the said evidence to decide the said question and consequently, all the grievance petitions. A copy of this judgment be remitted to the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, along with the records immediately.