' This appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 2-4-1984, of the learned Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who dismissed the application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, of the appellant.
2. The appellant, Syed Zarief Zaidi was appointed on 6-2-1983, as a Painter purely on temporary basis and the appointment order at page 27 of the lower Court record shows that he was to work upto 5-5-1983. The appointment order contemplates also that his services would be terminated without notice and without notice he may serve his services. He worked upto 5-5-1983, when he was given the notice of termination. Since he was subsequently required, therefore, a second temporary appointment order, dated 11-5-1983, was issued at page 31 of the lower Court, the terms and conditions were the same. On 12-6-1983, his services were finally terminated., He was on daily wages of Rs.30, per day.
3. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. S.M. Kohistani on behalf of the appellant and Mr. H.A. Jaffery, Advocate, for the respondents. Mr. Kohistani has argued that the appointment of the appellant was permanent one and he refers to Standing Orders' Schedule where the nature of permanent appointment and the temporary appointment is defined. The definition according to this Schedule is as under:- "(b) 'A permanent workman' is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and his satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same It The definition of temporary workman is as under:- "(e) 'A temporary workman' is a workman who has been engaged for work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months."
4. The pre-condition of the permanent workman is that the job should be of permanent nature and is likely to continue for 9 months wherein the workman has completed the probationary period of 3 months. I find that the initial orders issued in favour of the appellant were for the fixed period upto 5-5-1983, and it is mentioned that it is purely a temporary job wherein he shall be paid daily wages of Rs.30. The second order, dated 11-5-1983, was upto 7-8-1983 and it was purely of temporary nature on daily wages of Rs.30. The two orders are similar in nature. The definition of permanent job as mentioned in the Schedule does not apply in the instant case. This is because it is not mentioned in the order that the job is likely to continue for more than 9 months. And as such it was purely a temporary job. The learned counsel, Mr. Kohistani failed to satisfy this Court that the job was of permanent nature and the definition as in Schedule applied to it.
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent are also heard. From the circumstances of the case it is clear that the appellant was appointed to, was purely temporary job and carried daily wages and as such it was to be terminated without notice as contemplated in the two orders quoted above. The appellant has no case as observed by the learned Labour Court.
The grievance notice is without any good grounds and the petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court.
' The appeal is accordingly dismissed.