A list of the workers has been furnished with copy supplied to the other side, for whose interest the present petition is filed and relief sought.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the workers concerned are by their nature of work, Service Rules of the Company and also the law, permanent and should be declared as such and given the consequential relief. In this connection reference is first made to the appointment letter, dated 5-3- 1985 (Annexure 'A-1'). The terms and conditions of the appointment set forth in this letter are:-- (1)Your employment in the Sui Field Compression Project, Phase-1 shall be on purely temporary basis which is expected to last for a period of approximately two years and shall be terminable on the expiry of the aforesaid period or upon the completion of your assignment in the Compression Project for which you are engaged, whichever may be earlier.
(2)It should be clearly, understood that your engagement ~-exclusively for the Sui Field Compression Project, Phase-1 and in case of termination of your service after the expiry of the period of your employment and/or on completion of the job assigned to you in the project, you will have no claim, lien or right, whatsoever, on Pakistan Petroleum Limited or any of its associated organizations for continuation of your services or for absorption against any other job in the Company in it's regular operational establishment nor shall your temporary employment in the Sui Field Compression Project, confer on you any right of permanent employment in the Pakistan Petroleum Limited against any job, whatsoever------------ (7)You shall be governed by the Service Rules as may be applicable to your category of employees as in force from time to time in the Sui Field Compression Project, etc. The letter only shows that the appointment is "On purely temporary basis". It is, nevertheless urged that the appointment has in fact become permanent. For this purpose reliance is placed on the Service Rules of the Company and Standing Order No. 1(b) and (e) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In the Service Rules (Annexure A-3) there is a definition of 'Permanent Workman; which reads:-- Permanent A 'Permanent Workman' is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not being an illegal lock-out or strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment (and includes a badli who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty-three days during any period of twelve consecutive months).
These words are a reproduction of the definition of the same term given in Standing Order 1(b).
Clause (e) of this Standing Order 1 defines a temporary workman as "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".
3. t is submitted that the work involved has not only exceeded nine months but more than two years and is still continuing. For this reason, according to the petitioner's counsel, the workers concerned have ceased to be temporary workmen and even if they were so at the time of their appointment, they are now entitled to be declared permanent workmen. This inference is hotly contested on behalf of the Management and in support reliance is placed on the ruling in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v . Sind Labour Court and others PLD 1980 SC 323.
4. I have considered the submission made but I find no escape from the view that the contentions if examined will call upon adjudication on a question of a right claimed. The examination will also involve B interpretation of the Service Rules and the law in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Such exercise is not available to this forum in view of the ruling in Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v. N.I.R.C. And others PLD 1982 SC 113.
5. The petition, therefore, must fail for want of jurisdiction and is accordingly dismissed.