Respondents Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmed S/o Muhammad Siddi, Muhammad Qasim Sio Pir Bakhsh, Muhammad Ramz.An S/o Elahi Bakhsh, Muhammad Ismail Sic) Haji Raimen Khan and Muhammad Aslam SA) Khuda Bakhsh filed grievance petition in the year 1998 before the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan asserting that they were appointed on work charge basis in Provincial Building Division D.G. Khan/the appellant department and had been working for last about 2 to 15 years; that they being workmen as defined Under Section 2 (X0(VIII) of IRO, 1969 and in the light of Section 2(I) of Industrial Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1969 they had attained the status as permanent workmen as they were performing their duties for more than nine months. They prayed that their services be regularized. Along-with the grievance petition an application U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, CPC was moved.
Written reply was submitted wherein it was agitated that actually the respondents were temporary employees' employed as work charge basis, hence they were not entitled for regularization as prayed for.
Initially as temporary injunction prayed for by the respondents was not allowed by the trial Court, hence a revision petition was filed which remained pending before the Tribunal till 02.12.2013 which was decided and direction were issued to the trial Court to decide the grievance petition after recording the evidence from both sides.
4. The learned trial Court subsequently recorded the evidence from both sides, the respondents Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmed S/o Muhammad Siddi, Muhammad Qasim S/o Pir Bakhsh, Muhammad Ramzan S/o Elahi Bakhsh, Muhammad Ismail S/o Haji Raimen Khan and Muhammad Aslam S/o Khuda Bakhsh appeared as PW-1, 2, 4, 5 &7 while submitting their respective affidavits and were cross examined by the learned counsel for the appellant department.
5. On the other hand, on behalf of appellant department Muhammad Iqbal Sub Engineer Provincial Building D.G.Khan appeared as RW-1 and learned counsel for the appellant got exhibited initial details about temporary work charge establishment Ex.R.1, while Iqbal Hussian Siddique Sub Engineer District Building D.G.Khan appeared as RW-2 and learned counsel for the appellant closed the evidence.
6. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment dated 14.05.2014 allowed the grievance petition of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment.
7. Learned DDA submits that all the five employees/ respondents were appointed as daily wager in Provincial Building department; that no sanction posts were available nor authority has any power to regularize the respondents; that respondents were paid out of maintenance funds available for the maintenance of the buildings; that learned trial Court did not consider these aspects and passed the impugned judgment dated 14.05.2014' without any lawful justification.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and referred the statement of RW-1 Muhammad Iqbal Sub-Engineer wherein he admitted the length of service of the respondents; that he also admitted that at the time of recording the statement respondents were also working in the department on their respective posts.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court minutely.
10. If the documentary evidence in shape of Ex.R.1 details of initial appointments of the respondents as work charge basis is seen, the following dates of appointment of the respondents were shown: Serial No.Name Date of Appointment 1 Muhammad Aslam S/o Khuda Bakhsh01.04.1995 2 Muhammad Qasim S/o Pir Bakhsh 01.09.1995 7 Muhammad Ismail S/o Haji Raimen Khan01.06.1996 8 Muhammad Raman S/o Elahi Bakhsh01.06.1996 32 Muhammad Fayaz Ahmad S/o Muhammad Siddi01.11.1996 The statement of Muhammad Iqbal, Sub Engineer RW-1 if seen he has reproduced these dates of appointments in his examination in chief. He did not controvert the evidence lead by the respondents that they had been performing their duties as Plumber, Fitter coolie, Electrician and Carpenter since their initial appointments, hence in these circumstances, they all had been performing their duties as workmen as nature of their job require to perform the manual jobs and if the date of filing of their grievance petition is seen they remain in their services more than nine months. It is worth mentioning that even although unfortunately this grievance petition remained pending Q for more than ten years; the respondents had been performing their duties as such till disposal of the said grievance petition in the year 2014:
11. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record referring different judgments especially PLD 2003 SC 724 titled as Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi Vs. Ghulam Abbas and others whereby it has been held: S.O. 1(b)...Permanent...Worlu-nan...Determination...Record showed that neither there was any specific project against which the employees were recruited/ appointed, nor the project, against which their appointments had taken place had been completed...Inference thus could be drawn that the employees were put on the jobs which were likely to continue for a period of more than nine months, as such in view of provisions of S.O. 1(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, they had attained the status of a permanent workman.
12. Other judgments referred by the learned trial Court are fully applicable on the facts and circumstance of the case which need not to be reproduced here. In a recent judgment passed by honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions No. 1655-L to 1684-L of 2014 titled Punjab Seed Corporation dated 18.12.2014, their lordships keeping in view the law laid down by honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in different judgments including 2013 SCM R 13 titled as Tehsil Municipal Officer, TMA Kahuta and another Vs. Gut Fraz Khan observed in Para 4 of the judgment: Heard. The petitioners have not denied that Respondents No. 3 to 32 have served the institution for more than 9 months without any complaint as well as the nature of their jobs was of workmen.
They had been receiving salaries without weekly deductions or for any gazette holidays and it has come on record, as fully elaborated in the chart given in the impugned judgment, that the respondents have been serving for a period ranging from 3 years to 23 years and in view of para 1(b) of the schedule to West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 the High Court has rightly held that they will be considered as permanent employees as they have been working on their jobs beyond the period of 9 months and in this regard it has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Punjab Seed Corporation and 2 others Vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1995 PLC 539) wherein it has been so held. Further the High Court while relying upon the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others Vs. Ahmed Hussain (2013 SCM R 1547) held that posts on which the respondents were employed and working were of permanent nature and they be governed by para 1(b) of the Schedule to West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment.(Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
13. In the light, of above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the records room after its due completion. The trial Court records be sent back immediately.