' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- The captioned six appeals (three filed by the WASA Authorities and three by the employees) are directed against the judgments dated 30-11-2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala whereby grievance petitions filed by Khawar Nadeem, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arshad (hereinafter referred to as "the employees") for their regularization in service were allowed with back benefits from the date of serving grievance notices. The employees have filed appeals claiming full back benefits whereas the WASA Authorities (hereinafter described as the appellants) have challenged the impugned judgments in their totality. As identical questions of law and facts are involved in all the six appeals, they are being disposed of 'through this single judgment.
2.. The facts of the case briefly are that the employees were initially employed in the Gujranwala Development Authority (GDA) and later on their services were transferred to the WASA, Department, Gujranwala. Khawar Nadeem joined as Tube Well Operator in the year 1999 and later on he was designated as Sanitary Supervisor; Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arshad were also inducted as drivers in the year 1998.
3. All the three employees claiming to be workmen filed grievance petitions for regularization of their services which were duly contested, by the WASA on the 'grounds that they were recruited as work charge employees for 89 days and this period continued to be extended from time to time.
Being temporary employee they had no mandate to seek regularization.
4.
The learned Labour Court after recording of the evidence and hearing arguments declared them permanent and allowed their grievance petition as indicated above.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the employees that they had rendered blotless service to the WASA for more than a decade as such it is obvious that the posts were of permanent nature which are still continuing and their performance was upto the mark as such the learned Labour Court has erred in denying them full back benefits.
6. On the other hand the carried counsel for WASA has challenged the very judgment on the ground that the posts were temporary and the employees were recruited for 89 days and never allowed to complete 90 days as such they were not entitled to claim regularization. As for the appeals filed.By the WASA it is argued by the learned counsel for the WASA that there is nothing on the record to show that the posts were permanent because no budgetary sanction was available in respect of these posts. Even Otherwise, when their services continued to be extended for 89 days there were a certain breaks as such they can not claim because the period envisaged under the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 has never been completed in each of one's case.
7. The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties. All the employees appeared as PW-1 in each case and they stated that they were employed in 1998 and 1999 respectively and continued to serve the department with fidelity as such they are entitled to regularization of their services on account of the length of their service The department examined Ch. Nazir Ahmed Deputy Director, WASA as RW-1 who reiterated the stance' of the department in their written , statement. The RW in his affidavit, stated that the period of service of employees was from 1-7- 2009 to 27-9-2009. - While, in cross-examination he conceded that he was in service of GOA when the employees were also working. This is a clear misstatement. At will behoves the Government which is considered to be a model employer to defeat otherwise the well founded claim of its employees. Even otherwise, the department has pleaded the, claim of their employees by making wrong and incorrect statements. In this view of the matter, it. Appears that the department was defending their cases with unclean hands. As such on this ground also the department is not entitle to the relief claimed for.
8. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
9. Now the position is that all three employees are continuing in their services and the breaks shown are artificial. It is not the case of the WASA that when 89 days ended the employees'left the service and went home rather a careful and cautious perusal of their record would show that they continued to serve but an official order was passed after a one or two days break when the period of 89 days ended. So, therefore this break will not be deemed to be a hurdle in continuation of their services.
10. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondents are work charged employee and the very nature of their duties is that whenever and wherever the work is required to ,be accomplished such employees are deployed as such there is no question of permanent posts and regularization of these employees.
' Learned counsel for the employees however referred to the case of Executive Engineer: Central Civil Division Pak PWD Quetta v. Abdul Aziz 'and others 1996ePLC 385) wherein almost an identical question arose. The facts of this case briefly were that the respondents were low ' paid work charge/employees in the Public Works Division and rendered two to' seven years 'services., On their termination of service they approached the Labour Court. No,l Quetta challenging their termination.
The court allowed the petition inter alia with the following remarks:- ' From the above I am of ' the view that the applicant was a' permanent worker and termination of his service is illegal. As such termination order of applicant is set aside and he be reinstated in service within one month with all his back benefits from 9-6-1991. File is consigned to record."
' The 'department challenged this decision of the Labour Court before the. Balochistan. Labour Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal holding as under:--- "It is not' disputed that respondents were appointed about 2 to 7 years back and continued to work as such. They, therefore, cannot, be termed as work charged or temporary workmen."
' The matter ultimately was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Hon'ble Court while dismissing the appeal of the Government 'ruled:--- .
"If I were to hold that it will have the latter meaning, in that event, the appellant department will be covered by the above definition of "industrial establishment" Since the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance are beneficial provisions for the working class; the meaning whi5h would advance the object for which the above statute was enacted, be preferred. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the word "a person" used in sub-clause (v) of clause (f) of section 2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance will incluge a legal person. In this view of the matter, the provision& of the above statute are available to the respondents. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that upon expiry of the period of nine months as provided in clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the. Schedule, the respondents had become permanent workmen."
' To strengthen his claim the learned counsel for the respondents, relied upon 2008. PLC 284 wherein the Hon'ble Lahore High Court ruled as under:- "Work charge employment---Grievance of petitioner was thathe was employed on work charge basis in year, 1981 and prima facie worked till 30-6-2005 but his service was not regularized-- Validity---Held, there was no" concept of person being work charged indefinitely-Continuous service for period of about 23 years could not be at all deemed on work charge basis----Applying criteria laid down in West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order)
Ordinance of 1968,, petitioner was permanent workman having been employed against a job, which had continued for more than 9 months---High Court directed the authorities to issue appropriate orders for regularizing service of petitioner in the grade in which he had been serving- -.-Petition was allowed accordingly.'
' Reference was also made to 2010 TD 90=2009 PLC 196 wherein it was held:--- "S.0.1(a): Employee described as work charged employee would acquire the status of permanent workman under S.0.1(a) when he worked for more than nine months against a post which continued for years together. He would be entitled to all protection available to a permanent workman under labour Laws."
11. In this view,of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the department appears to be without any force and as such the appeals filed by the WASA Authorities are dismissed.
12. As for the appeals filed by the employees claiming for full back benefits, the Labour Court had recorded the evidence of the parties. The court had watched the demeanors of the witnesses and the implications of the payment of full back benefits as the Provincial Governments as well as their institutions 'are indeed facing financial crunch these days as such it appears that the Labour Court considered every aspect of the matter and had passed an order which in the given circumstances of the case appears to be appropriate. The regularization concept is almost a recent development in the interpretation of the labour laws as such the employees should feel content that the court has given them relief which even otherwise appears to be in keeping with the dictates of law and is likely to meet the ends of justice.
13. In this view of the matter both the sets of appeals filed by the department as well as the employees are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.