' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).- The appellant has challenged the order dated 12-4-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha whereby the grievance .Petition filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent was appointed in the first instance as a driver with the appellant establishment w,e,f, 3-1-2005. He, however, voluntarily resigned and was relieved of his duties on 20-6-2007. He again came to the appellant and requested A for re- appointment. Although the vacancy of a driver was available nevertheless he was appointed as a sanitary worker but had been performing the duties of a "driver" throughout and is being paid salary of the sanitary worker.
3. He filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court with the prayer that he has been performing the duties of a driver since his re-appointment as sanitary worker as such he may be treated as a driver and paid ,accordingly. The department resisted the grievance petition on various grounds. The learned Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties allowed the grievance petition with the following observations:- "The above circumstances, speak that the petitioner who is a Driver and the post of Driver is vacant.
His service from August, 2006 is to be considered as a regular employee. Petition is accordingly accepted with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner as a regular employee w,e,f, August, 2008. Petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Order of this court be implemented forthwith. Be consigned."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that his re-appointment was that of a sanitary worker although he has been working as a driver as such the learned Labour Court has no mandate in law to declare him as a driver since his reappointment.
5. On the other hand the stance of the respondent was that since he has been .Performing the duties of a driver regularly for the last many years he has become a permanent employee of the department 'hence he is entitled to be declared as a driver against a permanent vacancy from the date of re-employment.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
7. It is an admitted fact between the parties that after his second appointment he has been throughout working as a driver; his work and conduct has been very good and lastly the post of driver has all along been available.
8. The classification of workman has been provided in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Now let us examine as to whether the respondent is permanent worker and can derive the benefits of conditions of services as laid down in Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred as Ordinance, 1968). The Ordinance, 1968 spells out various classes of workmen as under:--- ' Classification of workmen ( a workman shall be classified---
(1) Permanent.
(2) Probationers;
(3) Badlis;
(4) Temporary;
(5) Apprentices.
(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 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)."
The legislature has used the words "engagement on a work of permanent nature likely to last for more than nine months". As pointed out above it is an admitted fact between the parties that since his re-induction into the employment of the appellant he has been performing the duties of a driver and the post of driver all along had been vacant. Now the question is whether this engagement or employment on such a job of permanent nature could be treated as permanent and can he be considered to be employee of the department as a driver since his re-induction into service.
9. The word "engagement" needs to be defined. According to the Manual of Law Terms and Phrases, 7th Edition, 1977 by Mr. Ananthkrishna Iyer, Ex'Judge, Madras High Court, it means:--- "Engage, engagement: Term synonymous with to contract and a contract, any person appointed ...."
' According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 3rd Edition: "Engage" means to arrange to employ some one. It would be useful to refer to the Doubleday Rogest's Thesaurus in dictionary form, revised 1987 edition which explains the word "engagement" on page 223:-- "engage" means to book, to retain, to appoint".
10. It is, therefore, clear that the working of the respondent shall be deemed to be employment with the department as a driver since August, 2008 and thus his employment in view of his continuous service for more than mandatory period shall be deemed to be permanent
11. In this view of the matter I feel that there is no flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Labour Court which is hereby upheld. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall be entitled to the perks and privileges of a driver since his re-employment.