ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal is directed against the decision dated 18-4- 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to this appeal briefly are that the appellant joined the respondent organization as LS-II on 13-7-2002 on contract basis which continued to be extended from time to time. There were lot of complaints of corruption against the appellant and the respondent company decided not to extend his contract and terminate his service with month's notice vide order dated 8-7-2006.
3. He approached the Labour Court under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.
Both the parties contested the case and finally the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as indicated above.
4. The grievance petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the appellant was a contract employee and as such his work having not been found satisfactory, the employer had every justification to refuse extension in the contract. This order of the Labour Court has been assailed through this appeal on the grounds inter alia that if a contract employee has worked for more than nine months and his services were found satisfactory by the employer he attains permanent status under Standing Orders. Ordinance, 1968 provided his post was of a permanent nature. Both these ingredients existed in this case. It is therefore obvious that in such a situation the contract became irrelevant and the appellant had to be governed under the Labour Laws and in case he is alleged to have committed some misconduct he could not have been ousted without undertaking the procedure as envisaged under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The impugned decision according to the learned counsel for the appellant is based on misconception of the Labour legislation qua a worker on a contract.
5. It was however contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents that there were numerous complaints of corruption. Against the appellant throughout his services and the department had been tolerating him hoping that he would mend his ways. When he failed to correct himself the respondent was left with no alternative but to get rid off him. He was a contract employee and it was very much stipulated in the contract itself that the contract shall be operative upto a given date and if not extended the appellant shall cease to be an employee of the respondent.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
7. The sole point for determination in this case is whether he became a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and was appointed against a permanent post If these two ingredients are there in his favour than the contract appointment would become altogether irrelevant in this case and he shall be governed by the Labour Laws.
8. Now what appears in this case is that he had served the department for more than four years against a post which undeniably is of a permanent nature. It was therefore incumbent upon the employer to have conducted a regular enquiry because the charge was of corruption and misconduct. No enquiry in this case has ever been held as such the order passed by the learned Labour Court is devoid of any merit. Reference in this behalf may be made to 1999 SCMR 2331. In this case an identical situation existed and their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme. Court were pleased to approve and uphold the following findings of the Labour Appellate Tribunal:--- "There is practically no dispute between the parties that but for the contract agreements all the appellants could qualify as permanent workmen. It is an admitted fact that the appellants performed their duties against the work of permanent nature and their period of employment was for a much longer period than the one which entitle them to be classified as permanent workmen under the Labour Laws. It is provided in section 4 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 'Provided that no such agreement shall have the effect of taking away or diminishing any right or benefits available to the workmen under the provision of the schedule.' It is, thus manifest on the strength of this provision of law that it would be the Labour Laws which would govern the relation between the employer and the employees and the contract agreement would not be a hurdle in application of the Labour Laws."
9. Even otherwise if the charge was of misconduct which could have been visited with a major penalty the law requires that even if an employee is temporary on contract basis or probation he is entitled to a fair opportunity to clear his position which means that he should be afforded a regular enquiry. Reference in this behalf may be 1997 PLC (C.S.) 873.
10. In this view of the matter the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. However, the respondent department is allowed to hold fresh regular enquiry in this case as envisaged by the law within a period of four months. On the result of the enquiry the question of back-benefits would depend. The period in which the appellant remained out 9f job shall be considered as leave of the kind due.