1. DECISION ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).--- I propose to decide the above fourteen (14) appeals by this single decision, as the common facts and grounds are involved in all the above appeals.
2. ' These appeals have been preferred and filed by the appellant management of Messrs Syngenta Pakistan Limited, Karathi, under section 54 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2010 whereby impugning the judgment dated 18th January, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,II, Karachi, who has allowed the grievance application of the respondent workers and have been reinstated in service with full back benefits.
3. ' I have heard Messrs Muhammad Sabir and Shaukat Ali Chaudhry learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghaffar learned Counsel for the respondent workers. Learned counsel for the parties have also advanced their written synopsis for the assistance of this Tribunal. After going through the record and proceedings of the case and arguments advanced by the parties, I have come to the following:--- ' Main controversy between the appellant and the respondent workers regarding their status as temporary workmen and the evidence as produced, if read with the relevant provision section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 for the permanent and temporary workmen, which is reproduced as under:--- "(b) A 'permanent workman' is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, and includes a badli who has been employed fora continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty three days during any period of twelve consecutive months, including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock out, strike not being an illegal lock out or strike or involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a badli who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty three days during any period of twelve consecutive months.
(e) A 'temporary workman' is a workman who has been engaged for work which is of an essentially temporary nature like to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months."
4. On the basis of the above provisions of law, if we examine pleadings of the parties, I find that respondent workers had claimed that they were appointed in 2004 but without any order in writing for the appointment or anything has been supplied. Whereas, on the other hand the present appellant has produced alleged application for appointment as annexure "A" and appointment letter as annexure "B" with the written statement before learned Labour Court.
5. ' In the affidavit in evidence respondent worker has denied the supply of annexure "B" and signature on it and whereas contended that the said annexure "A" was already typed form application and signatures were obtained. In cross-examination of the respondent No,1 being leading case who stated as under:--- "I see annexure "A" with W.S. And say it bears my signature. Vol. Says that it is not my form. I can read Urdu but know little English. Again says I cannot read English. It is incorrect to suggest that I received letter of temporary employment .... It is incorrect to suggest that temporary employment was for 84 days.
6. ' It is incorrect to suggest that letter of temporary employment shows period of time upto 84 days.
7. It is incorrect to suggest that I was appointed as temporary worker. I was appointed as permanent worker. It is correct company not issued any letter of permanent worker . It is incorrect to suggest that company issued termination letter dated 31-8-2009. It is incorrect to suggest that I was terminated on the basis of termination letter dated 31-8-2009. It is incorrect to suggest that company was authorized as per clause 2 of appointment letter dated 8-6-2009. It is incorrect to suggest that company issued appointment letter dated 8-6-2009---All papers annexed with affidavit in evidence are correct."
8. ' Perusal of above cross-examination reveals that the case of the respondent workers has not been shaken in any manner and the workers have firmed in their stand that no appointment letter was issued and their employment was permanent.
9. ' On the other hand, cross-examination of the appellant's witness has shaken the case of the management/appellant before the learned Labour Court.
10. ' Regarding annexure "A" with written statement, the witness of the appellant during the course of cross-examination has deposed as under:--- "I see annexure "A" with W.S. And say it is the same application filled by applicant. It is incorrect to suggest that annexure "A" is printed form of the company, filled out by the company. It is correct that contents of annexure "A" are same except particular of applicant. Vol. Says it is an application supply to the workers for their convenient. It is correct that appointment letters were not issued with,my signature. Vol. Says that it is signed by Administration Manager. It is correct that I had not signed termination letter. Vol. Says by Administration Manager."
11. ' Regarding annexure "B" witness of the appellant management stated during cross-examination as under:--- "It is correct that appointment letter dated 3-8-2009 filed in this Court as annexure "B" bears acknowledgement of applicant and same letter filed in NIRC not bears acknowledgement of applicant."
12. ' Though objection was raised to the above question, but the counsel for the appellant before learned Labour Court had ignored the admission of the said witness regarding the documents filed before the NIRC as under:--- "It is correct documents at pages Nos.100 to 178 with affidavit in evidence of applicant Shahzad were filed by company in NIRC. At this stage the learned Counsel for the respondents raised objection that said documents were filed by the respondents with written statement."
13. If, I read the above two statements together, I would finally come to the conclusion that appellant management had got signed some papers at the time of appointment without supplying copy of the same to the respondent workers and trying to use the same papers at the time of termination of their services, which is not warranted by law, as under Standing Order 2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the B management is bound to issue tickets to every workman employed in the establishment according to their status and once it is established that the employer has not issued such tickets, therefore, the effect of non-issuance shall be borne by the employer as it is the duty to issue such tickets imposed on the employer by the law. Relevant provision is reproduced hereunder:- "2. Tickets.--- (1) Every workman employed in an industrial establishment shall be given a permanent ticket unless he is a probationer, a badli, a temporary workman or an apprentice.
(2) Every permanent workman shall be provided with a departmental ticket, showing his number, and shall on being required to do so, show it to any person authorized by the employer to inspect it.
(3) Every badli shall be provided with a badli card, on which shall be entered the days on which he has worked in the establishment, and which shall be surrendered if he obtains permanent employment.
(4) Every temporary workman shall be provided with a temporary ticket which he shall surrender on his discharge.
(5) Every apprentice shall be provided with an apprentice card, which shall be surrendered if he obtains permanent employment."
14. According to the appellant management, respondent No,1 worker Muhammad Qadeer was appointed on 8-6-2009. Whereas, the Social Security contribution record bears his name in the list for the month of April, 2009 at Sr. No,4 and Sr. No,68 for February, 2009 and at Sr. No,58 for December, 2008, Sr. No,62 for November, 2008, Sr. No,9 for September, 2008, Sr. No,1 for August, 2008, Sr. No,22 for July, 2008, Sr. No,42 for June, 2008, Sr. No,53 for March, 2008, Sr. No,56 for February, 2008, Sr. No,80 for January, 2008, Sr. No,39 for December, 2007. All these documents were admitted by the appellant witness before learned Labour Court and if, I count the above contributions paid by the appellant employer for more than a period of two years clearly, unambiguously established that the job on which the respondent worker was appointed, was a permanent nature of job and lasted for more than two years, therefore, in view of the definition of the "permanent workman" as given by the Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the respondent worker(s) was a peimanent workman(s) and is entitled for termination letter with explicit reason as provided under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance 1968, which is reproduced hereunder:- "12. Termination of employm ent:
(1) . .
(2) .
(3) The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance."
15. ' In grievance petition respondent workers claimed that their services were terminated verbally without assigning any reason. Whereas, the appellant management has produced a termination letter dated 31-8-2009 as annexure "C/1" with the written statement. During the course of cross- examination of the respondent worker, no suggestion has been put to him that the termination letter was served upon him and no postal receipt/TCS was filed before the learned Labour Court with the written statement or affidavit in evidence of their witness. To the contrary, appellant witness during cross-examination has stated as under:--- "It is correct that termination letter dated 31-8-2009 not bearing address of applicant. Vol. Says it was given by hand along with final payment. It is correct to suggest termination letter not bears acknowledgement of applicant. Vol. Says their signatures are on final payment slip/sheets. It is correct no document of final payment and acknowledgement of applicant produced in Court with W.S. And affidavit in evidence. It is correct that there is no reference in W.S. And affidavit in evidence about final payment and acknowledgement. Vol. Says there is one letter dated 31-8-2009 annexure "C/1" to W.S. Without acknowledgement. It is incorrect to suggest no termination letter given to applicant, no final payment made."
16. ' Before parting with the decision/judgment, I have to go through the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant management as under:--- ' 1999 PLC 493 --- District Manager SRTC v. Nooruddin.
17. ' In the referred case, 'respondent worker failed to point out any document of employment.
18. Whereas, in the present case employment is admitted, therefore, the citation is distinguished ' 2008 PLC 72 Messrs Samkar Tamiraat (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Hussain.
19. ' Regarding the number of workmen employed and applicability of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. No such question raised in the present appeal, therefore, this citation is also distinguished.
20. ' PLD 1997 Karachi 6 -- Nooruddin and 11 others v. Abdul Waheed.
21. ' The relevant question in the referred case about the proof of specific particular fact and whereas, in the present case the employment was admitted, length of service is proved through admitted documents, hence judgment is distinguished.
22. ' PLD 2003 Karachi 45 -- Haji Riyaz Ahmed Mir v. Brig. Retd. Ch. Muhammad Sharif and 1993 PLC 2 -- Recha Pakistan Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar Virani.
23. ' Also in respect of burden of proof. I am afraid the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on it and also highlighted first line of para-2 which having a reference of admission of certain facts in the written statement. Such certain facts as admitted by the appellant management in written statement i,e, employment of the respondent workers, but had challenged the status of workmen, either permanent or temporary. Appellant management fails to prove its contentions. Whereas, contrary evidence has been produced before the learned Labour Court which has rightly found and considered by the learned Labour Court.
24. ' PLD 1987 SC 304 Pakistan v. Public-at-Large ' I am afraid that the learned Counsel for the appellant is relying on the same and failed to point out any relevancy with the present case, as the question in the cited case was the insertion of Section 13 in Civil Servants Act for premature retirement of a civil servant, which has no relevancy with the present case.
25. ' I have also gone through the citations 1993 PLC 192, 1979 PLC 207, 2000 YLR 1669, 2011 PLC 623 and 2005 SCMR 100 and found that the same are irrelevant, distinguished.
26. ' On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent workers relied on the following:--- ' PLD 1996 SC 610 -- Executive Engineer Central Civil Division Pak PWD Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others.
27. ' In the cited case the employer department failed to bring on record that work for which employees in question were engaged was not to last for more than nine months - work in question as far as the employer department was concerned, thus was of permanent in nature - findings of labour forum employees in question were permanent employees of the employer department was found on evidence on record in circumstances. Similarly, in the present case the services of the respondent workers was continued for more than two years, hence relying on the same dictum held cited judgment is applicable on the present case.
28. ' 2009 SCMR 320 -- Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Punjab Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akhtar and others.
29. ' In the cited case Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Labour Court by saying that 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 employees and their length of continuous service, they were entitled to be regularized .... Case was not fit for warranting interference by Supreme Court. Same is the position here.
30. ' 2008 SCMR 1058 -- Tehsil Municipal Administration Rahimyar Khan and others v. Hanif Masih and others.
31. ' In the cited case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that---when respondents were working for the last more than 20 years against the post which were permanent in nature, concurrent order passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court were unexceptionable. I am fortified with the said judgment and ordered accordingly.
32. ' 2006 PLC 102 -- Farooq Ahmed versus Delta Shipping (Pvt.) Limited.
33. ' Hon'ble High Court held that---service 'no longer required mentioned in termination letter did not constitute reason----termination letter was not in accordance with Standing Order 12(3). I agree with the same.
34. In view of the above discussions on facts and the case-laws cited by the relevant parties, I am in agreement with the learned Labour Court and confirmed its Findings by dismissing the above appeals and directing the appellant management to follow the decision of the learned Labour Court within thirty days.
35. ' As I have already considered and scrutinized the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the respondent workers were employed on permanent nature of job and served for more than two years, as proved by way of evidence, which is basically an admitted evidence on the part of the appellant management, therefore, there is no need to record additional evidence or to frame any further issue on the point, which is basically raised in miscellaneous application dated 16-9- 2011 and I find no merits in the said application, which is hereby dismissed as not maintainable