' On 7-10-1990, we had heard learned counsel for petitioner in support of this petition. On conclusion of his submissions, by a short order, the petition was dismissed in limine. Reasons for dismissal of the petition are contained in this order.
2. Petitioner is Johnson & Phillips (Pak.) Limited. Respondent No, 3, Syed Tahir Hussain Zaidi, filed a grievance petition against the petitioner-company under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, praying that termination of the services by order dated 24-1-1989 of the petitioner may be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back benefits. The case of the petitioner was that respondent No, 3 was never employed against any permanent nature of work and he had been engaged on jobs which were essentially of temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding 9 months. The respondent No, 3 examined himself in support of his case before the Labour Court whereas the petitioner-company examined its Manager, Industrial Relations. By order dated 5-3-1990, the Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of respondent No, 3 ordering his reinstatement with full back benefits. The petitioner filed an appeal but, by order dated 6-8-1990, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-company filed this Constitutional petition.
3. The entire case of the petitioner-company depends on their plea that respondent No, 3 was a temporary workman and not a permanent workman.
4. In the Standing Order No, 1, in the Schedule to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a permanent worker is defined as a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than 9 months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of 3 months. In the same Standing Order, a temporary workman is defined as a workman who has been engaged for work which is essentially of temporary nature likely to finish within a period not exceeding 9 months.
5. The first letter of appointment of respondent No, 3 is dated 31-12-1986 and it describes the employment of respondent No, 3 on retainership basis. From the letter of appointment, an impression was sought to be given that respondent No, 3 had not been employed as a workman but the relationship sought to be created between the petitioner and respondent No, 3 was of a different character but from the other documents of the petitioner-company it is evident that respondent No, 3 had been employed as a workman although the letter of appointment had described that he was employed on retainshiper basis. One such document is a memo dated 5-5- 1988 from the Manager Industrial Relations, addressed to respondent No, 3 which reads as follows:- - "TRANSFER ' In order to ensure career development and maximum utilisation of human resources it has been decided to transfer you from Transformer Factory to Switchgear Factory with effect from May 7, 1988.
' This transfer does not involve any change in your rate of pay, designation and other existing terms and conditions of your employment.
' Please report to Mr. Mobashir-ul-Islam, Incharge Switchgear Factory for further instructions and assignment of job."
6. The other document is another memo also of Manager, Industrial Relations of the petitioner- company dated 28-5-1988, addressed to respondent No, 3, which is also reproduced here:- "TRANSFER ' This is to advise you that you have been temporarily transferred from Switchgear Factory to Transformer Factory with effect from 29-5-1988.
' This transfer does not involve any change in your rate of pay, designation and other existing terms and conditions of employment. Please report to Mr.Noaman Shafi, Incharge Transformer Factory for further instructions."
7. These two memos. Of Manager, Industrial Relations read together with the letter of appointment dated 31-12-1988 will show that respondent No, 3 had been engaged by the petitioner company as a workman on permanent basis and description of his employment as retainership was only an attempt on the part of the petitioner to deprive him of his rights under the Labour Laws. In the memo. Dated 5-5-1988, the Manager, Industrial Relations of the petitioner-company is talking about the "career development" of respondent No,
3. The management will not be concerned or bothered about the career development of a person who is not a permanent workman but who is employed on a work of a temporary nature which is likely to finish within 9 months.
8. It may also be observed here that in case the intention of the petitioner-company was to employ respondent No, 3 as temporary workman, the letter of appointment would have made some mention of the work which respondent No, 3 was required to do. In the first letter of appointment dated 31-12-1986, no mention is made about the work for which respondent No, 3 was being engaged. We have already referred to the 2 memos. Of the Manager, Industrial Relations and, as observed earlier, these 2 memos. Read together with the letter of appointment dated 31-12-1986 indicate that respondent No, 3 had been engaged as a permanent workman.
9. Then there is a second letter of appointment dated 2-2-1988 which describes the employment again as a retainership. There is a third letter of appointment dated 13-1-1989 which for the first time describes the employment of respondent No, 3 as a temporary employment. However, as rightly observed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No, 3 had been engaged on a permanent basis and not as a temporary workman and the appointment letters could not convert the permanent nature of the appointment of respondent No, 3, into a temporary employment.
10. Mr. Obaidur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, had relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PIA v. Sindh Labour Court PLD 1980 SC 323 describing the said judgment as the sheet-anchor of petitioner's case, It was inter alia held in that judgment that a workman cannot become a permanent workman solly on the ground of having been in employment for more than 9 months. Reliance was also placed on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v. The Punjab Labour Court No, 1 1990 SCMR 1539 refusing leave to appeal to a workman. In this decision, it was observed by the Supreme Court that in order to get the benefit of the Standing Orders Ordinance in the matter of termination of service, the petitioner had to show that he was a permanent workman and if the work was not a permanent nature, then howsoever long may be his employment, he cannot be taken to be a permanent workman.
11. In our view, neither of the two decisions of the Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, supports the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case. There is a concurrent finding of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the respondent No, 3 was a permanent workman. This finding is supported by the letters of appointment and memos. Of Manager Industrial Relations of the petitioner-company. In our view no case has been made out for interference. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition was dismissed in limine by our short order dated 7-10-1990.