ORDER This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. II, Karachi dated the 9th of July 1973, whereby the learned Court dismissed the application of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'), on the ground that the application was not maintainable as the services of the applicant had been terminated in accordance with the terms of his service.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these. The appellant was employed on the 24th of January 1970 as an Overseer on purely temporary basis to supervise the construction work of Head Office Building on Queens Road, Karachi. His services could be terminated on a month's notice in lieu thereof on either side without assigning any reason. The appellant's services were terminated on the 23rd of May 1972 on the ground that the post of Overseer has been abolished.
3. I held in between National Shipping Corporation v. Syed Mubbashir Hussain that the N. S. C. (National Shipping Corporation) was being run under the authority of the Central Government and therefore the provision of Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply to the employees working in the N. S. C. 4.
Mr. Shaikh Qasim, the learned Representative for the appellant contended in the first place that the appellant having served for more than nine months became 'Permanent'. In this connection he relied on the definition of Permanent Workman given under Standing Order 1. Considering for, the sake of argument that Standing Orders Ordinance did apply to the appellant even than the appellant cannot be said to have become a Permanent Workman. 'Permanent Workman', under Standing Order, is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months. The first ingredient a person has to establish in order to be called a Permanent Workman is that the nature of work was permanent. The order of appointment itself shows that the appellant was appointed only to supervise the construction of Head Office Building of the respondent at Queens Road, Karachi. The construction in the Head Office could not last indefinitely. If it had not been finished within the stipulated time ic will finish in the near future which cannot be said to be a Permanent nature. The appellant, therefore, even if the Standing Orders Ordinance is applicable cannot be said to be a Permanent Workman.
5. In the second place Mr. Shaikh Qasim contended that the respondent/ appellant had failed to establish that the construction of Head Office had been completed. I do not think it was necessary for the respondent to establish that the work of the Head Office had been completed. The construction work of the Head Office may be about to finish and therefore the respondent was quite justified in terminating the services of the appellant on the ground that the post has been abolished. It is within the power of the employer to abolish a post if not needed. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent acted against him malafide.
6. In the third place it was contended by Mr. Shaikh Qasim that the appellant is very well qualified person, always well spoken of and, therefore, he could be employed by the respondent in any other capacity. It is not for this Court to go into that question.
On the face of it there is nothing against the appellant to disqualify him from an appointment in the respondent concern, lt would be open to the appellant to apply for any job that he may be qualified and which may be available in the respondent 7. concern. Lastly it was submitted by Mr. Shaikh Qasim that the appellant has not been paid his dues for Earned Leave. The appellant it is submitted has applied to avail his Earned Leave but it was refused. This request is also beyond the scope of section 25-A of the Ordinance. I am sure the respondent will not act as a despot in refusing to consider the request of the appellant in respect of his Earned Leave.
8. With these observations I would dismiss the appeal and maintain 1he order of the learned Labour Court.