' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- The appellants along with 16 others filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. They claimed to be workers within the meaning of the Labour Laws.
The grievance was that although they are working for years, they are not being regularized and consequently not being given benefits admissible to regular employees. The written statement was filed by the respondents. The learned Labour Court recorded evidence of the parties. So far as the remaining 16 appellants are concerned, the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan vide judgment, dated 17-6-2004 allowed their petitions and granted relief. However, the petition was dismissed to the extent of the present appellants on the ground that they are Chowkidars and as such are not workers.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants draws my attention to the written statement filed by the respondents to urge that it was not even pleaded that the appellants are not workers. The respondents have since been proceeded ex parte and today also no one has turned up for them despite repeated calls.
3. I have gone through the record. Now I find that in para.2 of the grievance petition it was specifically averred that all the appellants are performing manual duties and are fully covered under the prevalent Labour Laws. The reply is that the appellants are working under no cover. This has reference to the plea of the respondents that they are work charge employees. It has been already held as a fact that all the appellants stand employed and are doing their duties since the last several years and that they are working continuously.
4. Having thus, examined the said records, I find that there was no dispute that the appellants are not workers or workmen. This being so, the F.A.O. Is allowed and consequently the relief granted to the other appellants in the impugned judgment shall also be available to the present appellants.
No orders as to costs.