' The above-captioned three appeals arise from the decisions, dated 14-2-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and they were ordered to be reinstated in service without back benefits. As the facts and law points involved in all the three appeals are common, they are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The respondents were Electric Muawins appointed on (sic) According to them, they in April, 1978 were verbally informed that they had been discharged from services. After serving grievance notice the respondents brought grievance petitions. The case of the appellants is that the respondents were ad hoc appointees and thus had no vested right to challenge the order of their termination. It was further contended that the appointments of the respondents were made by the incompetent person namely the Foreman and thus they had no right to retain their appointment and the competent authority was authorised to put to an end the illegal appointment when it came to its knowledge. The case initially was fixed for the evidence of the respondents. The date was 9-10-1978. The learned counsel for the appellant informed the court that the decision be given on preliminary objections after hearing arguments. The case was adjourned to 11-10-1978 for the purpose and had been adjourned thereafter on various dates during which the learned Presiding Officer was transferred and his successor heard the arguments and decided the cases. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since arguments were heard on preliminary objections, main cases could not be decided on merits without affording the parties an opportunity to produce evidence. First preliminary objection was that the respondents were ad hoc and temporary appointees. The other objection was that the respondents had not been selected or appointed by the competent authority as they were appointed by the Foreman Power, who was not competent. The respondents in their grievance petition asserted that they were regular employees, meaning that they were not admitting themselves as ad hoc appointees, nor that they were taken in service by some incompetent person. Both the points could be proved by evidence. No appointment order is on the file to show the nature of appointment and the fact who had appointed the respondents. The learned trial Judge has observed that if some unauthorised person had appointed the respondents, the latter were not responsible and the authority who had committed irregularity should have been proceeded against. When irregular appointments have been regularised, therefore, the competent authority should have considered the case of the respondents and decided whether they should be regularised or not. The case does not show if it was done or not. This is true that it was not the fault of the respondents if they were appointed by the Foreman and that he was not competent in the matter. But before termination, the case of the respondents should have been considered, as mentioned above, by the competent authority and they could not be removed from service straightaway. No better statement was demanded from the respondents after the appellants filed written statements, therefore, only in evidence the respondents could show whether they had been appointed by the competent authority or that if the appointment was irregular whether some competent authority had regularised it. The result is that without evidence, the cases could not be finally decided by the learned lower court, I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned lower court, remand the cases with the direction that after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the cases be decided afresh. The respondents, however, would remain in service till the final decision of the cases by the learned lower court. , cases remanded.