' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 21st January, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be treated as permanent employee with effect from 10th October, 1972 and the benefits by way of seniority for promotion may also be given.
2. The petition was opposed by the appellants and three legal objections were raised, firstly that the respondent was not a workman, secondly that the Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction and thirdly that no grievance notice had been served. All three objections were overruled by the lower Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued in respect of the third legal objection only and has said that only copy of the grievance notice was brought on the record as Exh. P. 2 but no evidence was produced about its service. The objection is well founded inasmuch as no postal receipt or A./D. Receipt is on the record. The respondent appeared as his own witness as P. W. 1 but in respect of the grievance notice he stated only this much that the grievance notice was Exh. P.
2. He did not say that he had served the grievance notice upon the appellants.
4. On merits also the respondent failed to prove his case. He was employed on work-charged basis.
A work charged employee is paid wages for the work done by him. He is not paid wages for the days he does not work. He is not paid wages for the holidays. The respondent did not produce any evidence to the effect that even though he was described as work-charged employee, yet he was paid wages for the holidays and that he worked for three years without break. According to the WAPDA rules, a person who has served continuously for three years without break is to be confirmed. This is contained in Office Order No, S.
0. (CO-Order) 1-1106/13989-14139, dated 5th April, 1979. The learned trial Judge missed to see that the respondent had not proved by any evidence that he had worked continuously without break. If his post had not been on work-charged basis, it would have been presumed unless otherwise proved by the respondent that his service was continuous, but since admittedly he was employed on work-charged basis and remained as such till the time he made the application, the onus was upon him to show that he had worked continuously drawing pay for the holidays also and, thus was entitled to the benefits of the letter referred to above.
5. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.