DECISION Javed Ahmad Bukhari filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, and the same was dismissed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi on 28-2-1984. This is an appeal against the impugned order.
2. Javed Ahmad Bukhari was appointed on 12-10-1982 as Assistant Foreman on daily wages. For the first three months, he was a probationer. He was taken on regular basis on 16-3-1983 and was placed in Grade I. According to the terms and conditions of the service, he was a probationer. His services were terminated 8] months subsequently. The respondent establishment contended that he was engaged as an Assistant Foreman to do supervisory work and drew the salary more than Rs.800 per month, therefore, he was not a workman.
3. The fact is that he was originally engaged on 16-10-1982 by an order as a temporary employee on daily wages which was to be completed on 89 days. The appellant was offered a regular post of Assistant Foreman in the Pay Scale of 670-50-1,320 on the terms and conditions shown in the appointment letter. The appointment letter contained the terms and conditions, such a probationary period of 3 months, and this period of 3 months may be extended for further period of 3 months. It was further provided that during the probationary period his services can be terminated. There was other clause of the physical fitness; his transfer to any other place and the management may change his responsibilities and duties from time to time. Javed Ahmad Bukhari did accept the terms and conditions of the service. There is corrigendum. His appointment order was dated 13-3-1983 and not 16-1-1983. This corrigendum was accepted by Javed Ahmad Bukhari.
4. The respondents have taken two legal objections. Firstly, that the appellant was a Foreman drawing Rs.800 as pay and, therefore, he was not a workman. Secondly, his termination being simple, the termination cannot give the vested rights.
5.I have heard both the counsels of the parties.
6. The contention that Javed Ahmad Bukhari accepted the terms and conditions of his new appointment and has accepted the corrigendum issued by the management, his services were terminated after 3 months being the probationary period. According to the terms and conditions, even the 3 months subsequently were shown to be probationary period in this case which had not expired and his services were terminated in the first probationary period, namely, on 2u-5-1983. I have gone through the record and proceedings and I find that his services were terminated in the first probationary period, therefore, he cannot agitate his grievance petition.
7. As regards the second point, whether Javed Ahmad Bukhari was working in his position as a Foreman, his own evidence is as under: - ---I was supervising 14 workers, I also controlled them. I see 4 sheets of paper, showing the names of workers who were allocated overtime by me. I see their attendance statements, which is prepared by me. I see my signature on the leave application, where leave was granted by the Deputy Manager. I used to forward the reports of Security Officer. I drew salary of Rs.1,530.
It is his own admission that he controlled 14 workers as a Foreman. It is, therefore, found by the learned Labour Court that he is not a workman and on this account also, the appellant's grievance petition is dismissed.
8. In nutshell the grievance petition has no merits and I feel that the petition was rightly dismissed and I would maintain the impugned C order.