The decision dated 18-8-1985 passed by Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged by both the parties. Sarfrai (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Garden Town, Lahore (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was appointed as Badli conductor vide order, copy of which is Exh. P.1, on 25-10- 1983. On 11-8-1984 his services were terminated as no longer required vide order, copy of which is Exh. P.
7. The respondent deposed in his statement that he was not appointed in any leave vacancy or on account of the absence of any conductor. In Exh. P. 1 though it is said that the respondent was appointed as Balid conductor, but it is not said in whose leave vacancy he was taken as a Badli.
Since the respondent himself says that he was not appointed against any leave vacancy, he is not a Badli conductor and since there is no evidence that he had completed the probationary period of three months, he has been wrongly directed by the learned lower Court that he be treated as a permanent workman. But even for the termination of the services of a temporary worker, reasons are to be given. In Exh. P. 7 no cogent and explicit ground is given. "No" longer required" is no reason.
Question arises, why no longer required? This is not the case of the appellant that the post against which the respondent was employed has ceased to Exist. So the order of termination is not legal and on this ground the respondent is entitled to be re-instated in service.
3. The appeal of the respondent for back benefits has not been pressed.
4. As a result, the appeal of the respondent is dismissed and that of the appellant is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, it is held that the respondent is not a Badli conductor but a temporary employee and he be re-instated in service as such without back benefits.
A.E.