' ABDUL GHIAS NOUSHERWANI (MEMBER).--- This appeal directed against the judgment dated 31-10- 2011 passed by 1st Labour Court Balochistan wherein the grievance application of appellant was dismissed.
2. According to grievance application,of appellant/applicant he was appointed by. Respondents'
Nos.1 and 2 on 14-4-2005 along with other security.Guards on PTCL's towers and their salaries issued on monthly basis by means of sanction memo. Dated 14-4-2005 and received the same till 2nd July, 2007 by means of cheques and cash thereafter the salary was stopped but, again the salaries of June, July and August, 2007 were reeeived. After this the salary was stopped inspite of the fact that the appellant/applicant still performing his, duty and no termination order has been issued. It is further stated that the applicant inspite of verbal requests submitted applications for release of his salaries dated 20-6-2009, 31-10-2009, 2-12-2009 and 20-2-2010 but no action has been taken therefore he filed grievance application on 24-8-2010 and after necessary proceedings the grievance application was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the appellant was appointed by means of sanction memo. Dated 14-4-2005 and still performing his duty without any interruption and he had never been terminated from service. Next contended that after receiving his last salary, verbally he requested to respondents Nos.1 and 2 continuously and thereafter submitted continuously applications as mentioned hereinabove and performing his duty till the moment therefore no limitation run against his claim. Further contended that above quoted applications were served for redress of his grievance meaning thereby the requirements of service of grievance notice has been fulfilled. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 on the other hand strongly opposed the appeal and contended that the appellant/applicant was appointed for a. Temporary purpose and thereafter the security agency was awarded the security of the PTCL towers under an agreement dated 1-7-2007. Consequently the respondents Nos.1 and 2 has no responsibility with the duty and salary of appellant/applicant. Next contended that the security agency has not been made a party to check whether the applicant still performing his duty or otherwise. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 contended that no gievance notice has been served for redress of grievance which is the mandatory requirement of the law.
4. It is the case of respondents Nos.1 and 2 as summarized by the learned counsel in his arguments that the appellant/applicant along with other employees were appointed as temporary employee on daily wages and after awarding the security job to the agency he was terminated/relieved from his duty.
5. The main objection of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 that the grievance notice per law has not been issued/served which is the mandatory provision for initiating proceedings.
From perusal of record it appears that on 20-6-2009, 31-10-2009, 2-12-2009 and 20-2-2010 applications were submitted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 for release of his salary with the averment that he was still performing his duty. The purpose of serving of grievance notice is to bring the grievance in the notice of employer by the employee before approaching the Labour court. The law/legislature has not provided a specific format for serving the grievance notice: The submission and receiving of aforementioned application has not been disputed by the respondents, therefore, the grievance notice has been fully served in the shape of aforementioned applications and such objection is not maintainable.
6. The main objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 that the appellant/applicant along with other employees were appointed on temporary basis on daily wages. In this regard record reveals that the applicant along with others received their salaries on monthly basis by means of cheques and cash including that of for months of August to November, 2007. Even otherwise in the scheme of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 there is no concept of employment of daily wages. While classifying the categories of worker/workman six categories mentioned in Standing Order 1(a) as follows:---
(1) Permanent
(2) Probationers
(3) Badlis
(4) Temporary
(5) Apprentices
(6) Contract Worker ' The definition of temporary workman given under the said law is a workman who has been engaged for work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months. According to learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 that appellant/applicant has been appointed on temporary basis but in the light of above mentioned definition the job/work was not a temporary in nature which was to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months rather it is a permanent job and according to appellant/applicant he is still performing his duty. Even otherwise according to plea of respondents Nos.1 and 2 that in the month of July, 2007 the job of ecurity was awarded to Pacific Security Services (Pvt.) Limited also confirmed that the nature of job is a permanent in nature. According to definition of a permanent workman the appellant/ applicant gains the status of permanent employee for the reason that he had worked for more than nine months and completed a probationary period of three months satisfactorily without any break. Therefore such objection is ruled out.
7. Coming to the point of agreement between respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Pacific Security Services (Pvt.) limited dated 1-7-2007 thoroughly examined this agreement but nowhere it is mention that what would be the fate of already working employment for security purpose. Secondly it appears that the same came into existence with effect from 1-7-2007 up to 30-6-2008. Meaning thereby that the said agreement came to an end on 30/6/2008 for the reason that neither the same has been extended on paper nor verbally stated in, arguments. Meaning thereby that agreement dated 1/7/2007 was a temporary arrangement which did not disturb the position of employee of the respondents Nos.1 and 2. A similar nature of the case came before honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which was decided and reported in 2001 PLC (C.S.) 41 wherein held, "Mere nomenclature of "agreement" between respondent-Corporation and ,contractor, would not make petitioners "workman" under contractor but they were to be considered permanent workman of respondent-Corporation-Petitioners, who had been doing same job which regular "passenger Services Assistants" were doing for the last more than two years, were entitled to same benefits/allowances and treatment."
8. It is the case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that after 2nd July, 2007 the respondent has no concern and connection with applicant/ appellant but the documents dated 30th June, 2011 which is the detail report with regard to salary received by appellant/applicant from September, 2005 to July, 2007 by means of cheques and cash but the last item at serial number 13 the salary of August to November, 2007 was also received in cash payment which confirmed that the appellant/ applicant was/is the employee of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
9. In the light of discussion law and observation of superior courts the appeal is allowed the order/judgment dated 31-10-2011 passed by the 1st Labour Court Balochistan is set aside. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are directed to release the salaries of appellant/applicant from the date when the same was stopped which shall continue in future according to law.
10. During the pendency of appeal an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Has been filed for impleading the Pacific Security Services (Pvt.) Limited as party which after submission of reply has been rejected and merged in this final judgment.
11. The copy of order along with original record of trial court be sent to trial court. Case after completion be consigned to record.