' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The instant Writ Petition No,610 of 2002, Writ Petition No,776 of 2002, Writ petition No,2186 of 2002 and Writ Petition No,1444 of 2002, are being decided together as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these matters.
2. The petitioners in the above cases, from time to time were recruited as the Chowkidars on daily wages by the respondent, Food Department; where after their services were dispensed with; they brought the grievance petitions claiming to be the permanent employees and also asking for the benefits which such employees are entitled to; the petitions were allowed by the Labour Court, vide judgment dated 22-4-2000; however, on appeals of respondents Nos.3 and 4, which were accepted vide judgment and decree dated 30-11-2001, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has held that the judgment of the Labour Court is erroneous therefore, the orders of the department terminating the services of the petitioners were upheld; however, the department was directed to re-employ the petitioners during the next procurement season. Both department and the petitioners challenged the above said judgment, by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; the petitions filed by the department have been dismissed, vide orders dated 6-6-2003 passed in Writ Petition No,7670 of 2003 etc. Whereas in the present petitions challenge has been made by the employees to the extent of their termination orders being upheld by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgments reported as Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division, Pak. P.W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others PLD 1996 SC 610, Izhar Ahmed Khan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others 2000 PLC 199 and Municipal Committee, Gojra through Administrator v. Mst. Tasneem Akhtar and 2 others 2000 PLC 81, has argued that as the petitioners were working against the permanent posts and the nature of their duties was also of permanent character, therefore, in such circumstances, they for all intents and purposes were the permanent employees, and could not be terminated.
4. Replying to the above learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4, states that the petitioners were not employed as Chowkidars on any go down of the Food Department, against a regularly sanctioned permanent post, rather they were recruited at the procurement centers, where the wheat or grain was kept for custody, for onward transportation either to the mills or to the go downs of the respondent. Food Department, therefore, it is only for such period, that when the grain or wheat is lying in the centers, the services of the petitioners were needed on temporary basis; therefore, such daily wagers cannot be held and considered as the permanent employees; in support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment reported as Muhammad Yacjoob V. The Punjab Labour Courts Nos.1 and 5 and others 1990 SCM R 1539.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the question, whether the employee is working on permanent or temporary basis, two important factors are to be kept in view, whether he has been working against a permanent post for the requisite period of time and if the nature of his duty was of permanent character.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, when questioned to point out from the record, if the above criteria has been established through the petitioners' evidence, he has not been able to show, if the posts against which the petitioners have been working, were sanctioned posts of the Food Department; besides, there is nothing on the record to show, if the petitioners have been working in the permanent go downs as the "go down keepers", rather from the document brought by the petitioners' counsel to the notice of the Court i.e, Roll Call Register, it is clear that the petitioners have been working as the Chowkidars at the procurement centers, which obviously does not mean the permanent go downs.
' In the light of above, the view taken by the learned forum below is valid, no illegality or error of jurisdiction has been shown, therefore, these petitions have no merits and are hereby dismissed.