DECISION ' This appeal from the order of the Labour Court Karachi dismissing the application for reinstatement under section 25(1), I.R.O., arises in the following circumstances.
2. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner, that he had been appointed by the respondent as a Carpenter Grade-I on 2-9-1989, against a salary of Rs,1,300 per month which later on was increased to Rs,1,650. The appointment, according to him, was for the completion of the Site installation of the Jinnah Terminal of the Karachi Airport, but subject to probation of 3 months.
However, the involvement of the petitioner with the trade union activities, and on 1-10-1990 a verbal duel with one Mr. Okai, Senior Executive led to the abrupt termination of his service on the 8th of October, 1990, though workers junior to him had continued in the employ of the respondent.
3. The petitioner had brought his grievance to the notice of the employer vide letter dated 21st of October, 1990 and as it went unheeded he had filed the grievance petition.
4. In the Reply Statement it was stated that the project they were working at, was of a specified duration and even the employment of the workers by them was phase-wise. It went on to say that as the phase on which the petitioner had been placed had been completed, his services had been terminated. The other allegations in regard to misbehaviour with Mr. Okai, or the assertion of the petitioner that the respondents were nursing any grudge on account the alleged trade union activities came to be repudiated.
5. The petitioner was his own witness, and one Muhammad Hussain, the Personnel Officer of the respondent Company was the sole witness on behalf of the respondent. The learned Presiding Officer found that as the petitioner had not been able to prove that the work at the particular site on which he was appointed had not been completed or that any worker of his category junior to him was still working with the respondent or that some other person had been appointed to replace him, dismissed the petition.
6. The respondent is a foreign firm and had been awarded the contract for the construction of the Jinnah Terminal at Karachi Airport. They are not Pakistan based any way. Even the letter of appointment which was after the interview of the petitioner specifically mentioned that his employment was of a temporary nature. The contention however raised is that the work was still in progress when the appellant's services were terminated and that scores of Carpenters still remained in the employ of the respondent. The further contention on his behalf was that this had happened because of the unfortunate incident a few days earlier, when there was a wordy fight between him and Mr. Okai. The plea that he becomes surplus, was merely specious.
7. The mention of the appellant's trade union activities and the resultant displeasure of the respondent, or the exchange of words between him and Mr. Okai arc mere frills to the story and remained unsupported from any quarter. The short question therefore for determination would be whether the appellant, who had worked for over a year, would still be treated as temporary as mentioned in the letter or as a permanent employee? In the latter eventuality the termination would be insupportable.
8. When the appellant was in the witness-box, he could not give the name of any Carpenter who had been appointed in his place. There is also no denying the fact that the work was of a limited duration and it had been said that the workmen had been engaged with specific assignments. It has been stated by Azhar Muhammad Hussain that the duties of the appellant were on T.V. Phase IV and V which according to him had been almost completed with the result that 50% of the labour working on it had to be retrenched. It has not been contradicted.
9. In PLD 1980 SC 323 Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others it was held that a person employed in connection with a contract which was of a limited duration would not be a permanent workman. In 1982 PLC Labour 963 (Baz Khan v. M/s. Allied Tabkey Group Ltd.) it was held that a workman engaged for a specific job cannot be considered to be permanent, notwithstanding the fact that he might have worked for more than 2 years. In 1990 PLC 213 (Abdul Hameed Kiranvi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others) it was held that the decision of the employers that a workman had become surplus cannot be questioned except on the ground that the action was colourable, or in contravention by law.
10. This being the state of law, there is no force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. I would, therefore, uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.