' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this Labour appeal are that the respondent joined the appellant's organization in the year, 1994, he performed his duties till 2005, however, his services were terminated which caused a prejudice to the respondent who approached the Punjab Labour Court No,IV, Faisalabad through a petition under section 46 of the I.R.O., 2002. Both the parties contested the case and finally through judgment dated 31-5-2006 the petition of respondent was accepted in the following terms:- "Both the parties produced their respective evidence arguments heard record perused. It is admitted fact that petitioner was employed in respondent organization on 28-5-1994 and since then he is working in the Market Committee as per seniority list issued by the respondent. Under labour laws, if a person completes his job for more than 90 days he attains status of permanent employee. After employment for more than 90 days the petitioner has attained the status of permanent employee. If the sanitary work has been given of contract. The petitioner be adjusted on any other post of permanent nature. The termination of the petitioner without show-cause notice and enquiry against him is illegal and void. Therefore, the petitioner is re-instated with back- benefits and the respondent is directed to absorb him A on any post equal to his scale. With these observations this petition is accepted,"
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was daily wager; he could not be regularized despite his length of service. Further submits that practically there was a break in respondent's service so the claim of the respondent for regularization was not justified and the relief granted by the learned Labour Court cannot hold field. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment.
3. Practically the impugned judgment is passed in consonance of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Ikram Bari and 524 v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCM R
100. When confronted with this that how the Court can deviate to the law settled by the apex Court, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his contentions raised before the learned Labour Court as well as before this Court today. After hearing both the parties and going through the record I am of the considered view that the learned Labour Court did not commit any illegality while passing the impugned judgment which otherwise is unexceptionable.
' This Labour appeal is accordingly dismissed.