1. It is alleged by the applicant that he was appointed as Technician in the Maintenance Department of the respondents on 29-9-1984 That in order to defeat the Labour Laws.The respondents have been issuing temporary appointment order to the workmen and terminating their services as sweet will.It is alleged that the applicant was firstly appointed on 8-2-1983, thereafter his services were terminated and he was again appointed on 20-12-1983 and was re-designated on 5-5-1984 Thereafter he submitted resignation on the directions of the respondents and was re-employed on 29-9-1984The relevant appointment order etc are annexed as Annexures, A B C D and ---E--- to the grievance petition.
2. It is further submitted that the applicant had been active member of the Union That the trade union activities of the applicant annoyed the respondents as such the services of the applicant were terminated on 14-3-1985 without assigning any reason. The photostat copy of the impugned order is annexed as Annexure 'F' to the grievance petition. Grievance notice, dated 20-3-1983 Annexure 'G' to the grievance petition was sent and its reply Annexure 'H' was received by the applicant. Finally the present grievance petition was filed with the prayer of re-instatement with full back benefits.
3. Reply statement was filed wherein preliminary legal objections was taken to the effect that the respondent is protected by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, as such this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present grievance application. That the plant where the applicant was appointed and was working was outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. On merits it was submitted that the applicant was being appointed from time to time against temporary jobs. It was vehemently denied that the respondent was annoyed because of the trade union activities It was also denied that the services of the applicant were terminated on that count.
5. Applicant filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith the relevant documents. No other witness was examined by him.
6. The matter was fixed for the evidence of the respondents, but on 7-7-1986 the learned Advocate for the respondents moved an application that as the applicant had made material admissions in favour of the respondents during his cross-examination, hence the respondents did not want to lead any evidence and wanted to close down his side. Accordingly this Court on the same day closed down the side of the respondents.
7. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. After considering the evidence and the arguments, I have reached to the following conclusion.
8. As regards preliminary legal objections, admittedly the same have not been pressed by the respondents, hence the same are hereby overruled.
9. Perusal of the cross-examination of the applicant indicates that he had virtually admitted the case of the respondents as set out in the reply statement. His latest appointment was on 25-9-1984. He admitted that the previous appointments were also of temporary nature and that at the time of termination of those appointments, he had received all A the legal dues without any protest. This being so, obviously the applicant cannot reagitate the appointments made before 25-9--1984 1 am protected in my view by the authorities cited as 1981 PLC 670, 1980 PLC 665 and NLR 1981 T.D.
10. 361.
11. As regards the latest appointment which took place on 25-9-1984 (Annexure 'E' to the petition), it is alleged by the applicant that the respondent was annoyed because of the trade union activities.
12. Hence his services were terminated through the impugned order. But in the cross-examination the applicant admitted that there was only one Labour Union in the respondent establishment and he did not know its correct-- name. So, also he admitted that he had never been an office-bearer of the said Union. Such admissions clearly prove that false plea of Labour Union activity has been taken by the applicant, and that in fact he was not engaged in any trade union activities.
13. Appointment letter, dated 25-9-1984 Annexure 'E' clearly indicates that the applicant was appointed in a temporary job which was likely to; last for about 9 months. The termination order, dated 14-3-1985 Annexure 'F' to the petition indicates that the aforesaid work was complete hence the services of the applicant were terminated. Admittedly there are score of authorities whereby it is observed that in cases of temporary appointments against temporary job, the termination of service at the time of the completion of the jab could not provide grievance to the concerned worker. As such the applicant cannot come under section 25-A of I.R.0 against the impugned order.
14. This being so, the grievance petition is without any merits and is hereby dismissed.