' Since the above-captioned two appeals arise from the same decision of the lower court, they are being decided together through this single judgment. A.D. A. In this judgment will be mentioned as appellant and Liaqat All and Altaf Husssain as respondents .
2. The A.D.A. Has challenged the order declaring the respondents as permanent whereas the respondents have challenged the order to the extent it has declared that they are not entitled to back benefits.
3. These appeals arise from the decision dated 3-6-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondents was accepted and they were directed to be given benefits of N.P.S. And other facilities as allowed to the regular/permanent employees.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the appeals are that Liaqat Ali was employed as Painter and Altaf Hussain as Carpenter and they served for more than 183 days with gap upto 3-3-1980 when they were (sic) employed on contract basis vide appointment orders Exh. R.4 from 3-3-80 to 31-5-80.
This gave cause of action to the respondents and they brought grievance petition claiming that they were permanent employees.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the respondents were employed only on contract basis for a period less than two months and they had not remained in service for more than 9 months, they were not permanent employees. This argument ignores the previous service of the respondents. So far as Liaqat Ali is concerned, he is helper/painter and according to the statement of P.W. 1, the permanent employees of the appellant, except Carpenters, have been sent temporarily to Saudi Arabia. This being so, obviously the respondent No,1 was appointed in the vacancy of those painters who have been sent to Saudi Arabia. Since Liaqat All was appointed as helper/painter in place of permanent incumbents who have gone abroad temporarily, he comes within the definition of 'badli'. According to the statement of P.W. 1, Liaqat Ali had completed service of 183 days before 3-3-1980, so he had become permanent. However, since Altaf Hussain is a Carpenter and according to P.W. 1, no carpenter has been sent to Saudi Arabia, in view of the evidence on the record he does not stand proved to be a 'badli'. The lower Court declared the respondents as permanent solely on the statement of the respondents and there was no other material available on the record. The statements of the respondents so far as their period of service is concerned, stood controverted by the statement of P.W. 1, therefore, the lower Court was not justified to declare the respondents as permanent employees. Documentary evidence was available which could show whether the respondents were or were not permanent employees. If the pay and attendance registers had been summoned, they could show whether the respondents had been paid the remunerations for the gap period and whether actually there were gaps or not.
The attendance register would have shown if the respondents regularly attended duty or there were actually gaps in their service. None of the parties and neither the lower Court realised the necessity of the perusal of pay and attendance registers or any other document which could have set the controversy between the parties to a complete rest. No doubt, Liaqat All at present appears to be a Badli but if it had been ascertained that even otherwise he was a permanent employee, it would have been more beneficial to him because as Badli he shall have to vacate the post if the permanent employee happens to come back from Saudi Arabia.
6. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal of the appellant, dismiss that of the respondents, and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that the respondents be afforded an opportunity to call the pay and attendance records or any other document which they may like to produce in support of their case. The appellant will also be at liberty to produce evidence in rebuttal.