The three appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 29-8-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby the respondents were directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. As the grievance petitions of the respondents were decided by a single order and as facts and law points involved in all the appeals are common, all of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. On the plea that the Scheme was near completion and as the provision of work charged establishment and the estimate had exhausted the services of the respondents were terminated.
The case of the respondents was that when they brought the grievance petitions for their confirmation, they were terminated orally and afterwards the orders of termination of their services were prepared in back date. This plea has found favour with the learned lower Court and the finding appears to be correct. There is no evidence that the orders of termination were conveyed to the respondents in writing. For the termination of services written information may not be necessary but in such cases genuineness of the order can be challenged. The objection could be successfully met by the appellant by producing the pay disbursement record. It would have shown as to upto which date the respondents worked and received pay. Non-production of such a documentary evidence raises a presumption that services were shown to have been terminated in back dates. Apart from it the plea that the work for which the respondents were employed had been completed too was not established. In the orders of termination no doubt this is a ground for termination, but in the appointment orders it is not mentioned that for a particular scheme/project the respondents were employed. This discrepancy in the appointment letters Exh.P-2 and termination orders Exh.R-1 clearly shows that the plea is after thought. Since the respondents were not appointed for a particular work, their services could not have been terminated unless the plea of the appellant had been that no scheme/ project of any sort was in operation. But this is not the case of the appellant.
3. It has beer argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents are not covered by the definition of 'workman'. No doubt this plea was taken in the written statement but the appellant was debarred from raising it as in the previous litigation between the parties, it was held by the learned lower Court that the respondents and their other co-parties were workmen. This finding was not set aside in appeal and thus became final.
4. As a result, the appeals fail and are consequently dismissed.
A. E.