DECISION ' These 3 appeals are directed against the single order of learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 2-2-1988, whereby he dismissed the 6 grievance petitions filed by 3 appellants, (2 by each). I intend to dispose of all the 3 appeals by this single decision.
2. The 3 appellants were the workmen of the respondents. They claimed to be the employees of the respondents as Chowkidars since October, 1986. They filed grievance petitions Nos. 51, 53 and 54 of 1987 before the learned Labour Court praying that the respondents be ordered to pay their withheld wages for the months of January, February and March, 1987 along with Rs,200 deducted in December, 1986; issuance of appointment letters with effect from the date of becoming permanent and also for the double overtime for extra work taken from them at the rate of 4 hours per day for about 6 months i,e, 6 months wages amounting to Rs,6,000 and also to allow all sorts of leaves, bonus and 5% along with other facilities available to permanent workers under the Labour Laws.
During the pendency of these applications, the services of the appellants were terminated and after serving fresh grievance notices, the appellants challenged this order of termination of their services by filing grievance Petitions Nos. 89, 88 and 87 of 1987. The respondents denied the claims of the appellants on the ground that they were not workmen. They claimed that they were temporary employees employed as Watchmen with effect from 1-1-1987. They also resisted the petitions claiming that the appellants were on probation of 3 months and that their services were terminated on 15-3-1987 within the probationary period. The learned Labour Court had consolidated all 6 grievance petitions and disposed them by single order which is impugned in these 3 appeals.
3. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Zaheer on behalf of the respondents.
4. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were workmen. This conclusion is not challenged by the respondents. In A 1982 PLD Kar. At page 913, it has been held that the Chowkidar is workman, therefore, I need not discuss this point further.
5. The appellants claimed that they have been appointed as watchmen since October, 1986, whereas the respondents claimed that they were appointed from 1-1-1987 on probation of 3 months and that their services were terminated on 15-3-1987, though the appellants claim that their services were terminated with effect from 1-4-1987. Two appellants have produced their temporary cards issued by the respondents. The temporary card of appellant, Yar Muhammad is dated 29-11-1986 and that of Imroze Khan is dated 20-11-1986. The witness of the respondents, Captain Zeeshan Ahmed had admitted in his cross-examination that these cards were issued by respondents. He has also admitted that the respondents have not been paid their wages for the months of January 1987 to March, 1987. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the first grievance notice given by the appellants on 4-3-1987 in which in para. 1, it was alleged that they were employed since about 6 months continuously and were being paid Rs,1,000 per month for the first 3 months, but, later on were paid Rs,800 for the month of December, 1986, and thereafter their wages were withheld. In reply to this grievance notice which has been produced by the respondents, it is not specifically denied that they were working for 6 months as alleged by them, but, it is stated that the allegations made in the grievance notices were misconceived, false and baseless and that they had been paid their wages correctly. Apart from the evidence-in- affidavit filed by the appellants aforesaid admission of the witness of the respondents and reply to the grievance notice clearly indicate that the appellants were appointed much before 1-1-1987. The identity cards produced by the two appellants show that they were appointed somewhere in November, 1986. Even, if that date is taken to be a correct date and even if the date of termination viz. 15-3-1987, as given by the respondents, is accepted to be correct, still by that date, the appellants had put in more than 3 months services as workmen. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellants were working as temporary workmen against a temporary job likely to be finished within 9 months. Therefore, they cannot be considered as temporary workmen.
After completion of the period of probation of 3 months, they would be deemed to be permanent workmen as defined under Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent witness has further admitted that the appellants were not paid salaries for the months of January to March, 1987. The case of the appellants, therefore, gets support even from the evidence and documents of the respondents. The mere fact that no written orders of permanent appointment were issued to the appellants has no consequence in view of the proof on record which shows that they had worked as workman for more than 3 months at the time, their services were terminated. Even, the learned Labour Court in para. 2 of the impugned order has remarked "that in view of the admission by their witness, the stand taken by the respondents of denial of the payment of wages in para. 1 of the prayer, is very disappointing. This first grievance of the applicants remained redressed, for any delay in the payment contrary to the Standing Order 10 is the contravention, within the meaning of section 7 regarding criminal jurisdiction."
6. The learned Labour Court appears to have been impressed by the admission of the appellants that they had worked with Messrs Deen Shah up to 31-12-1986. The witness Yar Muhammad has in a Court question stated that this Deen Shah was taken over by Messrs Delta Ark and this Deen Shah is no more in existence and in its place Delta Ark Service viz., respondents had come. This fact was conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments. The respondents' witness has further admitted that the respondents were inducted from 1-10-1986.
Thus, the admission of the respondents that they were working with Messrs Deen Shah could not be fatal to their case as admittedly the present respondents had taken over from Messrs Deen Shah from 1-10-1986, though the appellants being ignorant workmen were still under the impression that they were employees of Messrs Deen Shah. This admission of appellants, therefore, in my opinion would not nullify the effect of the admissions of the witness of the respondents in cross- examination, the identity cards issued to the two appellants in November, 1986 and the implied admission in reply to the grievance notice, as pointed above.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, the appellants had acquired the status of permanent workers and the orders of termination of their services and the act of withholding their wages for the months of January to March, 1987 was illegal. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. The appellants are ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits along with arrears of their salaries for the months of January to March, 1987. The order is to be implemented within one month.