' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- The petitioner seeks setting aside of order, dated 18-11-2006 passed by Mr. Abid Hussain, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Gujranwala and the order, dated 27-1-2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,3 filed an application alleging that she started working in the Factory of the petitioner in the year 1987 and she was drawing wages' amounting to Rs,2,500 per month. The petitioner terminated her services on 20-1-2004 and did not pay her outstanding dues with regard to notice pay, gratuity, compensation of annual leave, bonus and overtime amounting to Rs,1,14,834. The respondent filed an application under Standing Orders 8, 10- C, 12(1) and 12(6) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 read with section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The claim of respondent No,3 was that she was permanent employee and she had worked for more than 17 years from 1987 to 20-1-2004, but the petitioner had not shown her as permanent employee whereas due to the nature of job she was a permanent worker, who was entitled to the said amount. The petitioner in response to the application claimed that respondent No,3 was employed on 1-11-1990 on daily wages at the rate of Rs,96.15 per day, who was not a permanent employee and her services were terminated orally and nothing is to be paid to her, whose application may be dismissed.
3. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of Khushnood Begum/respondent No,3 as A.W.1 who also placed on record photo copy of Card (Exh.P.1), Social Security Card (Exh.P.2) and Grievance notice (Exh.A.3) and closed her evidence. On the other hand the petitioner produced Muhammad Idrees as R.W.1 and closed the evidence by placing on record certain documents. The learned respondent No,2 after hearing both the parties accepted the grievance petition of the petitioner vide order, dated 18-11-2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid ordel-, the petitioner filed appeal which has been dismissed by the learned respondent No,1 vide his order, dated 27-1- 2009. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent was not permanent employee, who was a daily wager and the order could not be passed by respondent No,2 as he was not the authority to pass such order, but the said order could be passed by the Labour Court. B Relies upon Abdul Sattar and another v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and others 2001 PLC 583 and Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. v. Abdul Sattar and 2 others 1996 PLC 162 in support of his contentions.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned orders.
Khushnood Begum respondent No,3 appeared as A. W.1 and stated that she had been working in the Factory of the petitioner as worker since 1987 and was drawing the wages of Rs,2,500 per month, but the petitioner terminated her service on 20-1-2004 and did not pay her outstanding dues. The petitioner produced R.W.1 Muhammad Idrees Labour Welfare Officer who claimed that the respondent was not a permanent employee and she was from the class of daily wagers. In both the orders.Passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, they have discussed the evidence and have come to a definite conclusion that the respondent had been working continuously in the Factory of the petitioner. She was being , paid on monthly basis and she also denied that she was a daily wager. However, she stated that she was terminated through an oral order, dated 20-1-2004. Both the for below have arrived at conclusion finding of fact that respondent No,3 was not a daily wager as she had continuously worked for more than nine months and she was a permanent worker after the expiry of period of nine months as mentioned in terms of clause (b) of paragraph (1) of the Schedule to the Ordinance, provided he is covered by the definition of term "workman" given in section 2(i) thereto and the explanation. Is that if the work was not of permanent nature and it was not likely to last for more than nine months only then the said worker can be considered as daily wager. In the present case the respondent had been working since 1987 and she continued to perform her duties till 20-1-2004. The Factory was engaged in manufacturing a crockery. The above work as far as the Decoration section is concerned of permanent nature. It has been established through evidence on record that respondent No,3 was working in Decoration Section since 1987 which work was of permanent nature but the petitioner with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to deprive the benefit of respondent No,3, treated her daily wager but by continue work of respondent No,3 in the Decoration Section since 1987 which was of a permanent nature the respondent had become a permanent worker in terms of clause (b) of paragraph (1) of the Schedule to the Ordinance. Both the orders impugned in this writ petition do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, but those are supported by the evidence on the record and the right provision of law has been applied, which are not open to any exception by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has not dealt with respondent. No,3 and other workers with clean hands, but has committed sheer violation of law by treating them as daily wagers in spite of the fact that they had been continuously working with the petitioner for more than nine months especially respondent No,3, had worked there from 1987 for more than 17 years continuously. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case rather it supports the case of respondent No,3.
6. For the foregoing discussion I see no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.