DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 9-10-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, IIIrd Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with half back benefits.
2, I have heard Mr. S.K. Zaheeruddin, Personnel Manager for the appellants and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was appointed vide appointment order, dated 1-7-1989 as Badli workman in place of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, (sic), who was shown to have gone on long leave. No period of appointment was mentioned in the appointment order. The respondent admittedly worked from 1-7-1989 to 18-12-1989 when his services were terminated on the ground that the services of the permanent workman, who had gone on leave and did not return back, had been terminated. After serving grievance notice upon the appellants, the respondent filed grievance petition claiming to have acquired status of a permanent workman and also requesting for reinstatement with full back benefits which was allowed as above by the learned Labour Court.
4. The main contention of Mr. Zaheeruddin is that the respondent could not acquire the status of permanent workman as he was a Badli workman. The learned Labour Court had relied upon the definition of permanent workman as shown in Standing Order 1(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under:- "Standing Order 1(b).---A 'permanent workman' is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out strike (not being an illegal lock-out or strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment and includes a badly who has been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty- three days during any period of twelve consecutive months."
' It may also be pointed that the words underlined by me were added by section 6(a)(i) by Act No, XXIII of 1973.
5. The bare reading of the provisions of Standing Order 1(b) and words underlined by me would show, that even a Badli worker who has worked for continuous period of 3 months in work of permanent nature would attain the status of a permanent workman if he has satisfactorily completed 3 months' probation. Mr. Zaheeruddin relies upon the later part of the underlined words which reads "or 183 days during any period of 12 consecutive months" and contends that as the respondent had not completed 183 days he could not be considered to be a permanent workman.
If the intention of the Legislature was that a Badli workman could only be deemed to be a permanent workman on completion of working for 183 days then the first clause of the underlined words would become redundant. It is a settled principle of Interpretation of Statutes that no clause or word used in a Statute is redundant. If both the clauses are read together it will be seen that Badli worker would become permanent under two A conditions, viz., (1) that he should have continuously worked for 3 months, or (2) he has worked intermittently for total number of 183 days in 12 consecutive months. In the instant case, the first condition should be applicable to the respondent as he has worked continuously from 1-7-1989 to 18-12-1989 viz., for more than 3 months.
6. The question would arise as to whether the respondent had satisfactorily completed the probationary period. The aforementioned Standing Order does not require any specific order from the employer to the effect that the workman had satisfactorily completed the probationary period of 3 months. The conduct of the employer would indicate, whether worker had completed the period of probation satisfactorily. If the employer is not satisfied with the work of the workman, he is at liberty to terminate his services within the period of probation viz. 3 months, hut, if he allows him to continue working beyond that period, the presumption would be that the workman had satisfactorily completed the period of probation and the employer was satisfied with his work. In the instant case, the respondent had worked for more than 5 months in a work of permanent nature and would, therefore, be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his period of probation and attained the status of permanent workman.
7. Mr. Zahiruddin further contends that the period of probation of 3 months would be counted from the date when the permanent vacancy occurred viz., 18-12-1989 when the services of the permanent workman, in whose place the respondent was working, were terminated. I am afraid I cannot agree with him. It is not disputed that the respondent was engaged in the work which was of permanent nature, but as badli worker as the permanent workman was on temporary leave. It may be pointed that the words "post or vacancy" are not used in Standing Order 1(b), but, the words used are "engaged on the work of permanent nature". Under the amendment which has been underlined by me, the word even a `Badli worker' who had worked continuously for 3 months in a work of permanent nature would acquire the status of a permanent workman. The word `badli' used in Standing Order 1(b) is also defined in Standing Order 1(d) as under:- "Standing Orders 1(d).--- A `badli' is a workman who is appointed in the post of a permanent workman or probationer who is temporarily absent."
8. If Standing Orders 1(b) and 1(d) are read together, it cannot be held that the period of probation of a Badli workman would run from the date a permanent vacancy occurred.
9. Mr. Zahiruddin also relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of National and Grindlays Bank Limited, Karachi v. Employees Union, reported in 1974 L L C 176. In this case the cause of action arose to a workman when his services were terminated on 31-10-1972. This Tribunal held that this badli workman did not acquire the status of permanent workman because the amendment in Standing Order 1(b) which added the words "and includes a badli who had been employed for a continuous period of three months or for one hundred and eighty-three days during any-period of twelve consecutive months," became operative from 15-11-1972 and it had no retrospective effect.
Obviously this decision is not applicable to the instant case, where cause of action arose after the amendment.
10. In view of the above discussions, the appeal has no merit which is summarily dismissed.