DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 10-8-1989, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,V at Karachi, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. M. Maroof, learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the appellant was appointed as 'Fitter' at the Power Plant Site Project by the respondents on 27-2-1987. His services were terminated from 8-10-1987. Aggrieved by termination order after service of grievance notice the appellant filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. The main contention of the appellant is that he was not given any `appointment order' in writing.
The respondents, however, have produced `appointment order' in the cross-examination of the respondent. This order is dated 27-2-1987 and lays down the terms and conditions of service of the appellant. It shows that the appellant was engaged on 'temporary' basis as a `Fitter' in the Finance and Trade Centre Project on 27-2-1987. Admittedly this order does not bear the signature of the appellant and there is no evidence that it was served upon him. However, the appellants are a 'Limited Company' and normally they would not appoint a person without 'appointment order'. The presumption under law would be in favour of the issuance of such appointment order. Even otherwise it is not very material for the decision of this appeal because the date and place of appointment is admitted and there is no other dispute with regard to the terms of appointment letter except that according to the appellant after having put in service of more than three months he would be deemed to be permanent workman.
5. The witness of the respondents Abad Ali had stated that the respondents had undertaken electrification of Finance and Trade Centre, which according to him was of temporary nature and after the work of the appellant was completed appellant's services had become redundant and, therefore, his services were terminated. He further stated that Project Engineer tendered his resignation on 3-12-1987, after completion of the project. It is not unnatural that the work of fitter may have been completed before the work of the Project Engineer was completed. The mere fact that the appellant served for more than three months would not make him a 'permanent workman'. Reliance is placed on the case of Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No, V and others PLD 1980 SC 323. In that case the workman was employed by the contractor who was entrusted with the construction of school. The contractor's work finished much after the period of nine months expired. The plea of the workman that he acquired status of 'permanent workman' was repelled by their Lordships. Their Lordships observed that 'insertion of words "likely to be" in clause (e) of Standing Order I clarifies 'that a workman cannot become a permanent workman if work for which he came to be employed was expected to be finished within nine months but in fact completed after expiry of nine months'. It was, further held `that the workman cannot become permanent workman for merely having been in employment for more than three months. Their Lordships, observed 'that the respondent (workman) was employed to supervise contract of limited duration and was not employed on permanent basis and hence was not permanent workman' and therefore even if the respondent worked for more than nine months he could not claim to have acquired status of permanent workman.
6. The next contention of the appellant is that his services were terminated by an oral order. The respondent allege that they had passed written order but respondent refused to accept and they had sent the same alongwith the reply to his grievance notice. The receipt of termination letter alongwith the reply to the grievance notice is admitted by the appellant himself. The reply is dated 20-12-1987 though order of termination is dated 8-10-1987.
7. Under Standing Order 12(3) the order of termination has to be in writing. It is not only sufficient that order should be in writing but it should also be communicated to the employee, so that he may have recourse to redress his grievance through Labour Court as provided under Standing Order 12(3). The order was communicated to the respondent on 20-12-1987, as such it will be deemed to have taken effect from 20-12-1987 and till then the appellant would be deemed to be in service of the respondent. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Rauf v. Messrs. Makran Fisheries Ltd. And another 1981 SCMR 631. In that case also the petitioner was not served by valid dismissal order on 17-1-1974, therefore, it was held to be effective from 5-4-1974, when it was passed and communicated to the petitioner as per endorsement on the order. I also find that this termination order does not provide for payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice which is mandatory under the Standing Order 12(3).
8. In view of the above legal and factual position the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed to the extent that he would be deemed to be in service of the respondents till 20-12-1987 and would be paid salary upto that date. He will also be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice, if not already paid. Order to be implemented within one month.