DECISION ' This is an appeal directed against the order, dated 28th April, 1983, whereby the Labour Court No, 1 has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The facts involved in the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a Helper by the respondent on 17th April, 1979 and was posted at Hub Dam Project. This posting, as contended by the appellant, was on a permanent basis but he was given daily wages and the same was mentioned illegally by the respondents in the Register that he was appointed on daily wages. On 7th August, 1972, he was transferred for duty at K.
0. Canal Project, Thatta, where he was assigned the job of a Sub-Surveyor but the appellant clearly mentioned that he was posted in the job as on daily wages. On 20th March, 1982, his services were terminated. The grievance notice was served on the respondents on 15th April, 1982.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply statement is that the services of the appellant were dispensed with by the Project Engineer, K. G. Canal, Thatta and as such the Labour Court at Karachi had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition. It was contended by the respondents that the appellant was not a permanent workman but he was employed specifically to work at K.G. Canal Project Thatta and the Project stood completed and he was no longer required. All along in the employment he was on daily wages.
4. The appellant furnished evidence by filing an affidavit at Exh. 3, while one Mr. Gul Muhammad, an officer of the respondents filed affidavit in evidence. Both were cross-examined and no further evidence was furnished.
5. The matter was heard by me. The point involved is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court at Karachi and the point was decided in favour of the appellant and hence, same is not contended before this Tribunal. The next point which is contended is precisely that the appellant was appointed to a permanent job both at Hub Dam at with the K. G. Canal Project, Thatta. This point was argued at length by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The orders of appointment are before me. They are Annexures `A' and 'W. The Annexure 'A' at page 13 of the lower Court record indicates that the appellant was posted as Sub-Surveyor in daily wages of Rs, 25 at Thatta. Annexure 'IV indicate that he was appointed on daily wages at Hub Dam but was transferred to report for duty to K. G. Canal Project at Thatta. Both these documents indicate that he was on daily wages. There is an admission of the appellant in cross-examination that he was not paid the wages for Fridays and other holidays. This shows that he was purely a temporary hand with daily wages. Then I am referred to Annexure R. 1, R. 2 and R.
3. All these orders show that the appellant was appointed as Sub-Surveyor on daily wages. There is no evidence to show that he is a permanent workman or that his work should be deemed to be permanent. I am referred to 1982 PLC 503 wherein the following paragraph is significant : "Termination of service-Requirement-Written order specifically stating reason-Workman employed specifically for specified period-Appointment order further specifying that service would stand terminated after expiry of specified period-Requirement, held, fulfilled and separate termination order not essential."
7. The authority is applicable to the facts of this case.
8. In the result the appellant has no case and the appeal is hereby dismissed.