DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28-5-1988, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, IV, at Karachi, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed by the respondents on 12-7- 1984, as a Weighing Labour on daily wages for 85 days. However, the case of the appellant is that he worked as Machinist/Turner continuously till 10-7-1987 when he was removed from employment without any written order. After adopting the grievance procedure he filed grievnace petition before the learned Labour Court which was dismissed, vide impugned order. The respondents resisted the grievance petition contending that the appellant was employed on daily wages, vide order dated 12-7-1984, and in terms of the said order, his services were terminated after 85 days.
The respondents denied that the appellant had worked as Machinist/Turner continuously till 10-7- 1987.
3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Tasneem Ahmed, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents corporation.
4. In support of his contentions, the appellant has filed his own affidavit-in- evidence. He has also filed certain documents in his support. In rebuttal, the respondents have examined one Nisar Ahmed, Workshop Manager, who filed affidavit-in-evidence and also filed certain documents.
5. The order of appointment, dated 12-7-1984, has been produced as Exh. A-1 It clearly shows that the appellant was appointed as Weighing Labour on daily wages purely on temporary basis at Rs,30 per day for a period not exceeding 85 days with effect from 12-7-1984. This order further provides that this temporary arrangement would be treated as terminated automatically on 8-10- 1984. However, the case of the appellant is that, he in spite of his order, from very first day, worked as Machinist/Turner in the Workshop Complex and continued to work as such till he was removed orally on 10-7-1987. In support of his case, he has produced the Photostat copies of the attendance sheets of respondents for the months of April, June, July, August, September and October,1985, as Annexure 'D' and also an endorsement/letter of Nisar Ahmed Khan, Manager (Workshop Complex)
QRG, dated 17-1-1987, as Annexure 'C'.
6. The copy of attendance register purports to bear some initials of certain persons, but, those persons have not been examined. The Photostat copy of attendance register for the month of July to October, 1985, shows attendance of only one person, namely the present appellant in June, July, August, September and October, 1985, which appears to be unusual procedure for keeping the attendance register. Normally, the attendance register would show the names of all the workmen for each month and no separate register is generally maintained for each workman. Similarly the photo copy of the attendance register for April, 1985 only shows the name of the present appellant and of nobody else. Nisar Ahmed the witness examined by the respondents also produced photo copies of the attendance register for the months of July, August, September, October, November and December, 1985, as Exh. R-4. Each sheet shows the names of 11 workers. All the workers had signed or initialed against each date except one worker, Abdul Rehman, who is marked as present or absent. The name of the appellant does not appear in this Exh. R-4 in any of the months. This Nisar Ahmed has also not been confronted with Annexure 'D' nor any explanation is sought from him about this Annexure. In his affidavit, however, in para. No, 12, he has stated that Annexure 'D' to the main petition did not establish that the appellant was continuously in the service of the respondent corporation. It may also be mentioned that in the grievance notice which has been produced as `E-2', there is no mention of this attendance register. The appellant, in his affidavit-in- evidence has also not made any specific reference to this Annexure 'D'. In his grievance petition, however, he states that he is producing extract from attendance sheet. There is no explanation as to from whom and how the appellant got these sheets. During the course of the proceedings, the appellant had moved an application before the learned Labour Court for summoning 12 documents from the respondents. Even, in this application, the original attendance sheets, the extract of which has been produced as Annexure `D', has not been summoned. In my opinion, this Annexure 'D' is not only not properly proved, but, also does not look above suspicion.
7. Next, I revert to Annexure 'C' which is a letter of Nisar Ahmed Khan, Manager Workshop addressed to the General Manager. It refers to certain previous notes regarding the appointment of the appellant to the post of Machinist/Turner. It is an important document and the relevant portion is reproduced:-- "Reference our previous note forwarded to the Secretary vide Dy. No, 501, dated 22-5-1985 regarding appointment of Mr. Qamaruddin son of Naziruddin to the post of Machinist/Turner. In this connection, it is stated that Mr. Qamaruddin has already been working in Workshop Complex for about three years as Machninist/Turner on daily wages. He will be more useful for Workshop Complex being an experienced hand person. It is, therefore, requested that he may kindly be appointed as Machinist/Turner against the clear vacant post of Turner."
' This letter shows that the appellant was already working in the Workshop Complex for about 3 years as Machinist/Turner on daily wages. Mr. Nisar Ahmed, in his affidavit-in evidence in para. 11 has referred this Annexure 'C'. He does not deny to have written this letter. He, however, contends that the interpretation being placed by the appellant was ill-founded and out of context of Annexure 'C' which did not show that the appellant was in the employment of R.E.C.P. For about 3 years as Machinist nor Annexure 'C' was an office order. This Annexure 'C' in clear words shows that the appellant had been working in the Workshop Complex for about 3 years as Machinist/Turner on daily wages. It may be pointed that the first appointment of the appellant was on 12-7-1984. This letter Annexure 'C', therefore, supports the case of the appellant that from the very first day, though employed as Weighing Labour, he has worked as Machinist/Turner in the Workshop Complex.
8. The contention of the respondents is that the appellant was or might have been employed by the contractor. There is no evidence on record to show that the contractor supplied any Machinist/Turner to work in the Workshop. It is quite possible that the contractor might be employing Weighing Labour, but, neither there is evidence nor does it look probable that the contractor would engage Machinist/Turner to work in the Workshop Complex.
9. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was working on daily wages. In other words, he was a daily wage worker. The question would arise as to whether a daily wage worker can be considered as a permanent worker, who could enforce his rights under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
The Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, defines workman in section 2(i) to mean any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward. However, workmen are classified in the Schedule in para. 1 as "permanent", "probationer", "badli", "temporary" and "apprentice". There is no classification of daily wage workers even under this Schedule. A temporary workman has been defined in para. 1(e) of the schedule to mean "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. It is not the case of the respondents that the job of Machinist/Turner in the Workshop was of a temporary nature likely to be finished in 9 months. In fact, from Annexure 'C' which is an admitted document, it appears that even on 17-1-1987, the appellant had been working there for nearly 3 years. Therefore, the only class of workers in which the appellant could fit in would be 'permanent' workmen.
10. The contention of the appellant that he had been working with the respondents for more than 3 years further gets support from certain applications of the appellant which have been produced by Nisar Ahmed from his record. Exh. R.W./1 is an application, dated 15-4-1986, moved by the appellant for appointment as Khadim in the mosque of the respondents. On this application, there is also an endorsement which reads "Recommended. He is working at GRG on daily wages and seems to be fit for the job applied for." It may be pointed that Nisar Ahmed has signed Annexure 'C' as Manager Workshop Complex" GRG. Exh. R-2 which has also been produced by Nisar Ahmed is another application of the appellant for appointment as Moazzan in the mosque of the respondents. It shows endorsement of having received by the respondents on 7-11-1986. In this application also, the appellant has stated to have been working with the respondents for 3 years daily wages basis in the Workshop Complex. All these documents, some of which have come from the possession of the respondents, clearly show that the appellant had been working with the respondents for nearly 3 years.
11. It may be argued that even Annexure 'C' would at most show the employment of the appellant uptil 17-1-1987, whereas the grievance notice is dated 17-8-1987. There is only oral word of the appellant that he was removed from service by oral orders on 10-7-1987. The contention of the respondents that the appellant ceased to be in their employment after the expiry of 85 days of his initial appointment is belied by the evidence on record which has been discussed above. Their contention that he might have been employed by the contractor also stands disproved by the endorsements of the employee of the respondents as pointed above. I have already held that because of his continuous working as Machinist/Turner in the Workshop Complex for nearly 3 years or more, the only classification of the workman in which the appellant could be fitted is that of a "Permanent" workman in spite of the fact that he may have been paid wages daily. Under Standing Order 12(3), the services of a workman shall not be terminated except by an order in writing which explicitly states reason for the action taken. No, order in writing terminating the services of the appellant had been produced by the respondents nor they alleged the issuance of termination order after 17-1-1987. The only letter relied upon by the respondents is Annexure `A-1' which is the initial order of appointment of the appellant which shows the temporary arrangement automatically came to an end on 8-10-1984. However, evidence on record shows that the appellant continued to be in service of the respondent even after this date upto 17-1-1987, as per endorsement of Nisar Ahmed on Annexure `C'. There being no other order, in writing as required under Standing Order 12(3), the word of the appellant that he was removed from service through oral orders on 10-7-1987 would have to be accepted. Such a removal from service is obviously illegal and is not maintainable.
12. Though this point has not been agitated, but, I may clarify that in view of the observation made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Industries Corporation v. P.L.A.T. And others 1988 SCMR 1725, the Standing Orders are applicable even to the workers of the corporation which are run by or under the authority of Federal or Provincial Governments.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and direct the reinstatement of the appellant as Machinist/Turner with back benefits from 10-7-1987. The decision is to be implemented within one month.