JUDGMENTRqja Afrasiab Khan, J.- The petitioner, Zila Council Sargodha, has moved these two Constitutional petitions (W.P. No. 4734 of 1988 and W.P. No.4735 of 1983) praying therein that the orders dated 7.6.1988 and 6.4.1988 passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively, may be declared wothout lawful authority and of no legal consequence. As the common questions of law and facts have arisen in both these writ petitions, as such, I propose to dispose of these matters together by this consolidated judgment.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents in both the writ petitions were employed by the petitioners as Mates and Beldars. The Government issued notification on the subject that employees of autonomous bodies should be made regular. The petitioner in obedience to the above said notification proceeded to regularize the services of the respendents w.e.f. 1.7.1984 vide Annexure 'A'. The respondents in both the petitions instituted grievance petitions before the Punjab Labour Court No.5, Sargodha praying that they should be regularized w.e.f. 1.7.1973. The grievance petition of the respondents was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and that on merits too no case was made out. The Punjab Labour Court accepted the grievance petition of the respondents on 6.4.1988 vide Annexure 'B'. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned Labour Court the petitioner assailed the same by filing an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 7.4.1988 vide Annexure 'D'. The learned Appellate Tribunal affirmed the findings given by the learned Labour Court.
3. The principal argument of the learned counsel is that grievance petitions of the respondents were barred by limitation and that the impugned order was passed on 11.7.1984 and the same was challenged in the year. 1987. Thus, the learned counsel submits that there was no justification for the two Tribunals below to interfere in the matter. It is next argued by the learned counsel that no right accrued to the respondents has been infringed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that their grievance petitions were within time and that there is a finding of fact arrived at by the two competent Tribunals and no law point was involved in the case and as such the petitions deserve dismissal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned Punjab Labour Court No.5, Sargodha as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal considered the evidence available on recorde and both of them have come to the conclusion that the grievance petitions of the respondents were within time and accordingly, they decided the cases in accordance with law. The learned Labour Court observed that in Government's letter No.SO- 4(g)-72 dated 9.8.1972, the Pay Revision Rules applicable to the non-gazetted civil servants of the Government of Punjab were made applicable to the employees of the Local Bodies w.e.f. 1.7.1972.
The learned Labour Court also observed that resolution No.140 of the District Council Sargodha (Ex.P5) was adopted by the Council on 20.6.1982 under which resolution the Mates and Beldars were decided to be regularized w.e.f. 1.7.1973. It is, therefore, clear that unde the above resolution No.140, the respondents earned their right of being regularized w.e.f. 1.7.1973. Thus, the subsequent resolution No.50 dated 26.6.1984 could not take away the right already accrued to the respondents.
The contention is that Government had also made the provision of Pay Revision Rules, 1972 of the non-gazetted Government Servants applicable to the employees of the Local Bodies of the Punjab w.e.f. 1.7.1973. The learned Labour Court has clearly held that the District Council, Sargodha vide its resolution No.140 dated 20.6.1982 (Ex.P5) decided to regularize the respondents Mates and Beldars w.e.f. 1.7.1973 and that after doing so, the same Council could not adopt another resolution No.50 dated 20.6.1984 (Ex.R/1) because such powers could only be exercised by the Provincial Government under the provisions contained in section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Thus, the learned Labour Court after discussing the entire evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the respondents were made regular in accordance with law.
They were given the benefit of Pay Revision Rules, 1972 in line with the non-gazetted civil servants of the Government of Punjab from 1.7.1973. This view was affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 7.6.1988. The learned Appellate Tribunal observed that under Standing Order No.1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the employees who complete their probationary period satisfactorily for a period of three months and are serving against their posts, are admitted to be permanent employees and theirservices shall stand confirmed automatically. The finding is that the respondents Mates and Beldars have been serving under the petitioner since long against their posts and as such they have automatically, by the operation of law, obtained the status of permanent employees. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I proceed to uphold the findings given by the two Tribunals below. The learned counsel has failed to show that the grievance petitions of the respondents were barfed by limitation. He has failed to point out as to what was the date on which the order regarding regularization of cvices of the respondents was passed and that what is the date on which intimation thereof was conveyed to them. Thus, in this situation, there is no material whatsoever on record under which it could be held that the grievance petitions of the respondents were barred by limitation. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the two Tribunals that the grievance petitions of the respondents were within time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal flaws in the impugned judgments. It appears that substantial justice has been done by the two Tribunals below in granting relief to the deserving respondents as warranted by law. These are not fit cases in which interference is called for. There is no substance in the writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.