This criminal complaint has been filed by Assistant Director Labour and Inspector of Factories praying for taking cognizance on the ground that Mr. Claus Sodowski the employer of Hoechst (Pakistan) Ltd: has not taken Saeed Akbar Khan in permanent employment after the completion of nine months' service as temporary worker in accordance with the requirement of section 2(g) 1(4) of the Standing Orders Prince, 1968 and, therefore, it is contravention punishable under section of the Ordinance.
2. At the time when this matter was placed before the Labour Court Shamsul Hassan Jaffri was served with a notice whether Assistant Director Labour has the jurisdiction to file complaint for seeking punishment of the employer that he has committed violation because Saeed Akbar is not made permanent. In this context he has made reference to the definition of section 2 for such cognizance.
3. The Court has examined section 2 and section 7 of the Standing Orders as to what offence the Labour Inspector of Factories can file complaint. Section 7 reads that any employer who modifies Standing Orders other than in accordance with section 4 invokes the penal punishment.
4. Subsection (2) relates to act done in contravention of the Standing Orders for which there is a punishment provided. Subsection (3) provides that if there is contravention of any provision of this Ordinance shall be punished with the punishment provided therein. Section 2 defines what is permanent, what is Badli, what is probationer and what is temporary. The Labour Inspector has brought this case to show that after completing nine months' service as a temporary worker the applicant has not been made as permanent.
5. This is not the case of the modification of the Standing Orders on the contravention of the Ordinance such as the display of the Wage Board or other requirements of factory as per schedule under the Factory Act of which the Labour Inspector is competent to inspect and take cognizance.
The fact that nine months were completed and he was not made permanent, this is purely a question of law for the Court to I decide, who has become temporary, who has become permanent, whether the work was of permanent or temporary nature. Any right secured or guaranteed of which there is infringement the aggrieved party can come to the Labour Court for seeking decision and the Court after hearing both the sides has to come to the finding whether version put forward by the employer or the worker as the case may be has justified the permanency in the working of the industry.
6. The Court is of the view that permanency of the job involves the element of probation and the permanency of the word distinct from the daily wages working and other classifications to be decided in context of further the case-law in the series of decision given from time to time.
7. In view of this matter, therefore, the scope of the Labour Inspector under the Factory Act is limited only to those functions which are specified whether it is jurisdiction of the Inspector to find out whether the requirements of the factory in relation to the worker amenities are complied with. So far as the job to be made as permanent, temporary, probationer or Badli. This is purely the jurisdiction of the labour Court to decide. Consequently the complaint is without jurisdiction) and is accordingly dismissed, on the point of law.
Mr. Jaffri has not convinced this Court that he has the previous instances of such conviction or filing of complaint which is not to the Court's satisfaction but in negative. Mr. Jaffri has to refer Standing Orders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, for the purpose of his jurisdiction.