The decision dated 28-7-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for being confirmed was accepted.
2. The respondent was appointed on 25-6-1965 and continued serving the appellant upto the date he made the grievance petition. The case of the appellant is that he served against T.L.A. The learned lower Court was misled by Exh.R-1. It does not show that there was any break. Rather it conversely displays that service was continuous. In the column of break, wrongly breaks of 14 days are mentioned. Every time right from the following days he was shown on duty. In Exh. R-1 certain sanction orders are mentioned but no copy of any order of sanction is on the record. Since in Exh.R-1 wrongly breaks have been shown, the description of sanction too is not believable. Again if the respondent remained posted on the same post, getting of sanction after every six months had no adverse effect since the service is without any break. This is not the case of the appellant, nor is there any evidence on the record that the respondent was appointed for any particular projects.
Of course if for different projects the respondent had been appointed, he could not have claimed permanency.
The learners lower Court has rightly held that one cannot remain on T.L.A. For 20 long years without breaks.
The learned lower Courts order is, therefore, unexceptional.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.