1. ' Hakeem Khan and Amir Mohammad have filed this petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969, against P. T. I. Through its Leaf Manager on 5th March, 1978. The following facts have been alleged in the petition.
2. ' That the petitioners were senior most workers in the respondent establishment in view of their category and term of service. The respondent has been calling for duty the petitioners well ahead of the season for the survey of tobacco crops and for the collection of the details concerning the tobacco crops every year. These appointments have been done in respect of each depot of the respondent establishment. For the survey of 1978 tobacco crops a circular was issued by the respondent establishment in which the date for the recruitment of mates was mentioned. This circular was sent to each depot of the respondent establishment including the depot of petitioners.
3. The petitioners presented themselves for recruitment for the said season, according to Standing Orders Ordinance but were deprived of their right to be recruited as such. The petitioners sent notices to the respondent which were rejected. The petitioners claim that their association with the respondent establishment has been of continuous nature and are thus entitled to profit bonus and 5% share in the profit. The petitioners could not be ignored because of their seniority as well and that by this illegal act of the respondent establishment the petitioner have suffered in their seniority and have also suffered in length of their services. Therefore the petitioners have prayed that they shall be considered to be on duty with effect from 10th December, 1977 and their seniority should be maintained.
4. ' Exh. P. W. I./8 is the circular referred to in the petition wherein the Leaf Manager has directed all the depots on 7th December, 1977 to recruit seasonal area mates with effect from 10th December, 1977 to carry out the tobacco seed bad survey. Exh. P. W.
5. 1./9 is the notice under section 25-A of the I. R.
6. 0., 1969. The written statement was filed on 16th April, 1978, wherein the preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that Mr. Ziaullah Khan, the representative does not have any locus standi to represent the petitioners, that the employment in the off-season in the leaf depots or the factory is not a right guaranteed or secured under any law, award or settlement, therefore this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 25-A of the I. R.
7. 0., 1969 and the petition is bad for misjoinder.
8. ' On the factual side it has been averred in the written statement that the petitioners were seasonal workers and therefore their services stood terminated on the closure of the season 1977. In the reply to para-2 of the petition it has been contended that the respondent engaged actual labour during the season according to its requirements. The petitioners were seasonal workers and cannot be treated as permanent workers and that the seniority of seasonal workers is only considered for the employment at the time of the start of seasons when the seasonal work is resumed vide my order, dated 17th June, 1978 the preliminary objections were rejected.
9. ' Amir Mohammad petitioner was examined as witness for the petitioners and his statement was adopted for other petitioner as a whole. Amir Mohammad has stated that he was employed as a seasonal mate in the respondent establishment in 1969. According to him there are two seasons for area mate with an interval of 15 days. The petitioners were not served with any callup notices to which the petitioners were entitled for season of 1977. The petitioners presented themselves for employment but other persons were employed instead of them including Amir Nawab. The petitioners served grievance notices but received no reply and the petitioners have produced Exh.
10. P. W. I./1 to Exh. P. W. 1/10 in support of their cases Exh. P. W. 1/1 to Exh. P. W.
11. 1./7 are to the effect that there are two seasons in the respondent establishment, Exh. P. W. I./1 indicates that on 31st March, 1976, the petitioner Hakeem Khan, was called for season duty with effect from 14th December, 1975 and was discharged on 31st March, 1976. Similarly, vide Exh. P. W. I/2 he was called for duty as mate with effect from 16th December, 1976 and was discharged on 31st March, 1977. Hakeem Khan was again called with effect from 18th April, 1977 to 26th October, 1977.
12. Similarly, Amir Mohammad was called for duty with effect from 16th December, 1976 to 31st March, 1977 and was again called for duty vide Exh. P. W.
13. 1./5 with effect from 18th April, 1977 to 26th October, 1977 vide Exh. P. W.
14. 1./6. Amir Mohammad was called as mate from 14th December, 1975, and was discharged on 31st March, 1976. Similarly vide Exh. P. W.
15. 1./7 Amir Mohammad was engaged with effect from 18th December, 1974 to 31st March, 1975. These exhibits do indicates that there were two seasons for these two petitioners but of which the first season commence from the middle of December, and terminated on 31st March, of the next year and the second season commence from April of the next year and terminated at the end of the October of that year. It is admitted in the statement of Khurshid, Welfare Officer, that the petitioners were mates in the respondent establishment in Charguli Depot which was according to him closed with the permission of the contractor with effect from 18th April, 1978. The respondent case is that circular Exh. P. W. 1/8 relates to all the depots. According to this witness the work of surveyor cannot be considered as seasonal work. The main point of the defence of the respondent is that since the Charguli Depot was closed in the year, 1978 therefore the petitioners could not be called for the inspection of the tobacco crops in the fields. Though previous to that year the petitioner did perform such duties and received call up notices for this purpose. This witness has admitted that the respondent establishment has lifted tobacco from the Charguli Depot to supply it to the other depots. This witness has admitted the correctness of Exh. P. W. I/1 to Exh. P. W. I./6.
16. ' In the light of evidence of the parties it is abundantly clear that the petitioners were called for two seasons in one year first of which commenced in the middle of December and terminated some time at the end of March, next year and for this seasonal work the petitioners performed duties of mates and inspected the tobacco crops in the fields. The second season commenced some time in the middle of April and lasted till the end of the October. The petitioners were called for both the seasonal work. However for the season in question the petitioners did not receive any call up notices for the inspection of the tobacco crops in Charguli Area.
17. ' The respondent plea is that the Charguli Depot was closed therefore the inspection of the crops was not required and therefore the petitioners were not called for his seasonal duties for inspection of the cross. There is force in the contention of the counsel for the respondent that seasonal workers in a depot cannot be treated at par with the permanent workers of the respondent establishment. No instance has been shown of any seasonal workers to be transferred to any other depot whereas permanent workers are the employees of the establishment and are transferred from one depot to the others. This right of seasonal workers cannot be considered equal to the right of the permanent workers. The petitioners were seasonal workers of Charguli Depot and this depot was closed for the period for which the petitioners have made a claim that they should have been summoned for the season for inspection of crops. When the depot was closed it necessarily meant that no tobacco was to be lifted from Charguli Tobacco area for the Charguli Depot. The mere fact that the tobacco was inspected in Charbagh Depot as is evident from the statement of the P. Ws. As additional witness, does not necessarily mean that the crops of this area ought to have been inspected and the petitioners should have been employed as a seasonal worker for the job.
18. ' In the light of the evidence on record it is clear that there were two seasons in Charguli Depot and the petitioners were seasonal worker for both the season but with the closure of Charguli Depot the work of the respondent establishment in the area was abandoned therefore the petitioners could not have been called for any seasonal duties in the area of Charguli Depot. The petitioners cannot make claim that their case may be treated at par with the permanent workers and that they should have been called according to their seniority in the respondent establishment. They were seasonal workers attached to a particular depot which was closed, therefore they could not have been called for seasonal work. Hence finding no force in the petition. I reject the petition.