The decision, dated 7-11-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was not a regular employee but a work charged employee and his services were not continuous as before the expiry of three months his services were terminated and with gaps he was re-employed. The reason for which his services were terminated was unsatisfactory performance. The respondent was initially appointed as clerk in August, 1980 and with effect from 14 7-1984 his services were finally terminated. This fact is admitted by R.W.1. He also admitted that in the personal file it was not mentioned when the respondent's services were terminated after he was appointed on 22-4-1980. He also admitted that on 16-9-1981 the respondent was recommended to be regularly appointed. The first order of termination of services is EXh. R.l. Vide this order the respondent's services were terminated with effect from 11-7-1983. It is thus clear that the respondent continuously worked from 24-4-1980 to 11- 7-1983. The period comes to three years, two months and fifteen days. He was a clerk. Since the clerical work continued for more than three years it is apparent that the post was permanent and since the respondent worked satisfactorily for more than three months, so on 24-7-1980 he according to Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 had become permanent. Even if it be accepted that he was appointed as work charged employee in 1980, the post ceased to remain a work charged post In reality the contention that the post was work charged stands falsified by the fact that it continued uninterrupted for more than three years. R.W.1 admitted that the respondent had been getting consolidated pay every month. The consolidated pay is fixed and paid for the whole month and wages for Fridays and other holidays are not deducted. So, in reality the respondent was a permanent employee, and only to deprive him of the benefits of a regular employee and to terminate his services, his recruitment was wrongly shown as work charged.
Needless to say that work charge means charges paid only for the work done. Since on Fridays and other holidays workers are not required to work, so work charge employees are not paid wages for those days. Since the respondent was getting consolidated monthly pay in lump sum, for this reason also he was recruited as a regular employee and on the expiry of three months during which there was no adverse report against him, he became permanent. In the last termination order it is mentioned that his performance in his previous service was not satisfactory but the period has not been specified. It is not said that during first three months from 24-4-1980 his performance was not satisfactory, so he was a permanent employee and could not be terminated unless his post had been for good and sufficient reasons abolished in which event too rule of first come last go was to be applied. Again even he could not be charge-sheeted and dismissed from service for unsatisfactory performance, as this is not the allegation that within one month of the order of last termination his performance was unsatisfactory. As required by Standing Order 15(4), misconduct can be brought to the notice of the worker concerned within one month since on 24-7- 1980 the respondent had become permanent, all the orders of termination and appointment were ineffective and illegal. The respondent, therefore, has been rightly directed by the learned lower Court to be re-instated in service.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed in limine.
A.E.