This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court , given on 29th May, 1982, upon the grievance petition of the respondent workman praying for re- instatement in service to his substantive post and the grant of pay and salary from 11th November, 1981. By the impugned decision, the learned Labour Court has accepted the grievance petition 'of the respondent workman and directed his re-instatement in service as Works Coolie and also awarded him salary from the date from which his services are said to have been terminated.
2. It is the case of the respondent that in the year 1980, he was appointed as Works Coolie under I.
O. W. (Loops) and 1. O. W. Mirpur--khas for a period of one year in leave and temporary vacancies.
On 20th January, 1981, he requested for appointment as Works Charges/ Works Coolie in place of one Sadiq Muhammad, who had been appointed as Fitter Helper..' There is an endorsement on his application, dated 11th April, 1981, by the Assistant Engineer, Railways to the effect that the respondent be appointed against the vacancy of Sadiq Muhammad, purely on-temporary basis till further orders. However, on 25th October, 1981, pursuant to the directions of the Minister of Railways, .The number of Works Coolies in the Railway was reduced by 10%. In pursuance of this decision, 2 Works Coolies, including the respondent Ghulam Mustafa, were declared as surplus and their services were discontinued with effect from 14th November,.1981 afternoon, but on compassionate grounds they were directed to report to P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas to work as Gangmen, if they were willing to join in such capacity. There is another letter, dated 16th November, 1981, addressed to the P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas, informing him that respondent Ghulam Mustafa and Saghir Ahmad, whose services had been declared as surplus in compliance with the instructions of the authori--ties, have been directed to report for duty to P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas, against existing vacancies. P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas, was directed to take necessary action for their. Absorption. The case of the appellants is that in compliance with the directions, the respondent reported for duty to P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas, and worked under him for 16th November, 1981 only but thereafter he absconded and failed to appear for duty.
3. The first issue which falls to be considered is whether the respondent was a temporary worker or is deemed to be a permanent workman. I have already referred to the application of the respondent, dated 28th January, 1981, wherein he has admitted that he had worked upto 28th January, 1981 under I. O. W. Mirpurkhas, and I. O. W. (Loops) in temporary and leave vacancies. The endorsement on his application for appointment as Work Coolie in place of Sadiq Muhammad, who was posted as fitter, also indicates that he was appointed on temporary basis until further orders. This suggests that the vacancy of Sadiq Muhammad was in all probability a temporary vacancy. Since the respondent had worked in leave and temporary vacancies, he cannot be deemed to be a permanent workman and is deemed to be temporary workman, notwithstanding the fact that the total period that he worked in different. Capacities in the Railway was almost 2 years.
4. Even if the respondent workman is deemed to be a permanent workman, then, also his position is not materially improved. By the letter from the Pakistan Railways, dated 25th October, 1981, a policy decision was taken in compliance with the orders of the Railways Minister that the strength of Works Coolies should be reduced by 10%., In compliance with these directions, the services of respondent Ghulam Mustafa and one Sagheer Ahmad were dispensed with. It is not alleged or claimed by the respondent that he was not the junior most Works Collie or that any Works Coolie junior to him was retained in the Sub-Division of the Sub-Engineer Works (Loops) Mirpurkhas when his services were terminated. The termina--tion of services of the respondent was in accordance with the principle of "Last in first to go out" and in compliance with the provisions of Standing Order
13. Further more, although the services of the respondent were terminated as Works Coolie as being surplus to the requirements of the Sub-Division Mirpurkhas, the I. O. W. (Loops), Mirpurkhas, was directed to absorb the respondent and Sagheer Ahmad as Gangmen in the existing vacancies.
This was purely done on compationate grounds. The fact that this was a new appointment was made clear by the directions given to the 1. O. W. (Loops) that they should be absorbed as Gangmen only if they are willing to work in that capacity. It appears from the letter of the Sub- Engineer, Mirpurkhas, that the respondent resumed duty on 16th November, 1981, and thereafter absconded and failed to perform his duties. Since the new posting of the respondent was under the P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas, and as the respondent after reporting to the said -P. W. 1, and working under him for one day, absconded, no right accrued to him for re-instatement in service much less the claim for wages for the period for which he failed to work. The fact that respondent Ghulam Mustafa worked only for one day under P. W. 1, Mirpurkhas, appears from the Wages Sheet at page 53 of the record of the learned Labour Court , where wages for one day only are claimed and the respondent is shown as absent.
5. It was sought to be c aimed by Mr. Muhammad Shafi, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the various letters to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this judgment were never served upon the respondent and hence there is neither any authenticity about them nor could the respondent be expected to know of the directions contained therein, These letters, were, however, not addressed to the respondent. Moreover, as appears from the letter of 6th December, 1982, the respondent actually worked for one day under I. O. W., Mirpurkhas, whereafter he failed to turn up and report for duty. The letters written by various officers of the Railway are part of official record and a degree of authenticity attaches to them under the Evidence Act.
6. This appeal was admittedly only in respect of the award of back benefits, to the respondent, since no order terminating the services of the respondent has been issued, much less served upon him. I have already shown that the respondent, alter joining his duties with I. O. W., Mirpurkhas, on 16th November, 1981, absconded from his duties. Since it is the respondent himself who has failed to report for duty without any leave and tangible cause, he is not entitled to any back benefits. I would accordingly set aside the orders of the learned Labour Court regarding the award of the back benefits and accept the appeal to that extent only.