' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The respondent in all these cases were appointed in different categories on work charged basis, between the years 1987 to 2000. They tiled grievance petitions before the Punjab Labour Court, Multan for regularization of their service which were allowed vide consolidated judgment dated 16.12.2006. Therefore, the petitioner department preferred F.A.Os. Nos.
18-L to 25-L of 2007 which were dismissed by a teamed Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, vide impugned judgment, dated 12.3.2008. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal:
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab vehemently contended that the respondents were not workers within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.
' Therefore, the Labour Court did not possess the jurisdiction in respect of their terms and conditions of service. It was further contended that in view of Rule 1.31 of Chapter 1 of the Establishment Temporary and Work Charge Regularization Rules of Irrigation Department, the respondents could not claim to be declared as permanent employees.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the services of respondents were ordered by the Lahore High Court to be regularized keeping in view their continuous service for a number of years, without any break, and the nature of the duties performed by them. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded 'by the Labour Court and the High Court did not warrant interference by this Court. He also relied on the cases of Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan (2005 SCMR 100) and Muhammad Asim v. Telecommunication and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1131 in support of his contention that in somewhat similar cases the work charged employees were regularized.
4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. We find that the Labour Court had recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of duties performed by the respondent and their length of continuous service the respondents- were entitled to be regularized in service. Ordinarily, we are not expected to substitute findings of fact recorded by the competent forum. The question whether such employees were to be treated to be civil servants was not seriously agitated by the petitioner department at the appropriate stage.
Prima facie, in view of the definition contained in section 2 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the work-charged employees did not fall within the category of Civil Servants. However, this point needs to be examined further in some other appropriate case. In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct. These are not fit cases warranting interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.