' Respondent Muhammad Abu Sufian S/o Faiz Muhammad filed grievance petition U/S 33 of IRA, 2010 giving the facts that he had been working as Imam Masjid in the Masjid established in the respondent's office since 1999; that nature of his job required to lead the prayers, operate the loud speaker etc, maintained the mosque which included its cleanliness and others allied responsibilities thus he enjoyed the status as a workman; that a post of Imam Masjid in BS-05 created in April, 2004 in the appellant's establishment but he was being paid only 1500/- as honoraria instead of the fixed pay according to the said scale; that he submitted applications and subsequently grievance notice to the appellant department for redressal of his grievance but without any consequences, hence he filed grievance petition before the learned trial Court.
2. Learned trial Court sought the written reply from the appellant department which was submitted while raising seven preliminary objections mainly on the ground that he was a part time worker and did not ,enjoy the status of either permanent or temporary worker as he only used to lead the prayers at fixed times and subsequently used to perform his private duties etc., hence prayed that this petition be dismissed.
3. Learned trial Court after getting the written reply from the appellant department recorded the statement of respondent Muhammad Abu Sufian S/o Faiz Muhammad PW-1 whereby he reiterated his stand submitted through the grievance petition while further elaborating that he was performing his duties as Imam Masjid since 1999 and was also performing other allied duties in the' mosque. He submitted documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to Ex.P..11 which included the sanction for creation of post of Imam Masjid BS-05 vide order dated 08.03.2004 by the Government of the Punjab (Ex.P.7). On the-other hand appellant department only examined Muhammad Irfan Hashmi as Rw-1 who got exhibited documents Ex.R. 1 to Ex.R.6, records of the payments to the respondent showing that he had been being paid honoraria since 1999 till filing of the grievance petition.
4. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 8.7.2013 allowed the grievance petition, hence this appeal is filed by the appellant department before this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent being Imam was appointed on the basis of fixed honoraria; that no sanction post was available; that learned trial Court did not consider these aspects of the case and decided the grievance petition in favour of the respondent without any lawful justification, hence prayed that this appeal be allowed while setting the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
6. Contrary, learned counsel for the respondent referred the judgment passed by the learned trial Court wherein in Para 6 of the judgment the different letters have been referred wherein department itself is seeking for creation of post of Imam Masjid in BPS-05; that learned trial Court after considering all these aspects has rightly decided the grievance petition, hence prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court minutely.
8. There is no denial to the fact according to the records itself produced by the appellant department that respondent Muhammad Abu. Sufian S/o Faiz Muhammad had been performing his duties as Imam Masjid since 1999 without any break. As far as the performance of the duties of the respondent is concerned, there is no denial to the fact that an Imam Masjid has to lead the prayer five times daily without any break. The nature of job as required is to perform by an Imam Masjid is to lead prayer five times daily thus it is a permanent nature of job starting from Morning Prayer till Eisha prayer, meaning thereby a whole day job and not of a part time nature. If the statement of respondent while recorded as Pw-1 is seen he clearly has stated that he not only used to lead the prayers rather he also handle the equipments like loud speaker etc.; as well as used to maintain the Masjid which included its cleanliness etc., therefore the manual type of, job also includes within the responsibilities of the respondent, hence he clearly falls within the definition of a workman as defined in Section 2(XXXI) of PIRA, 2010 read with Section 2(i) of Punjab Industrial Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 2012.
9. In a recent judgment passed by the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition Nos.
1655-L to 1684 of 2014 tilted Punjab Seed Corporation Vs. Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc their lordships pleased to upheld the judgment whereby along-with other type of workmen Imam Masjids were also declared as workman in Para 2 of the said judgment.
10. As far as the others objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant whereby it was agitated that no such post was available nor it was ever advertised but in view of the document Ex.P. Whereby TMO Ahmedpur East himself requested the Provincial Government for the creation of a post which was sanctioned vide Letter No. TMA/APE/EA/226 dated 08.03.2004 and it was further directed by the concerned for the recruitment but no such action was initiated as perhaps the respondent was being exploited and was being paid a meager amount instead of recruiting him in regular scale of BS-05. As the regular vacancy of Imam Masjid was available since 2004 and the respondent was performing his duties since 1999 thus in the light of judgment cited as PLD 2003 SC 724 titled as Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi Vs. Ghulam Abbas and others and the evidence available on the records the learned trial Court rightly allowed the grievance petition, hence no merits in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.