DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,III, dated 5- 3-1990, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Tasnim, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ibne Ayub, learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was a workman employed by the appellants whose services were terminated from 26-1-1989 vide letter, dated 24-1-1989. The only dispute between the parties appears to be as to whether the respondent was a 'permanent' or 'termporary' workman.
4. Apart from oral evidence to which I will advert later, four documents have been produced which are admitted by the parties. According to first document Annexure 'A' respondent was appointed from 1-1-1987 for a period of one year. According to Annexure 'D' the respondent was again appointed as `retainer' vide letter, dated 2-1-1988 for a period of one year which may be extended by the Company. Under Annexure `E' he was appointed for 62 days from 14-1-1989 to 16-3-1989 and under Annexure 'F' dated 24-1-1989 his services were terminated from 26-1-1989.
5. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent was appointed temporarily from time to time. The first two letters, Annexures 'A' and 'B' do not show that be was appointed for any particular job or that his appointment was temporary. Annexures 'B' and 'C' show that he was transferred to various jobs. A 'temporary workman' is defined under Standing Order 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as 'a workman who has been engaged for work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months'. As already pointed out the first two letters do not show that he was appointed for specific job which was likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months. Rather in both the letters he was appointed for the period of twelve months, therefore, at least up to 31-12-1988 the respondent cannot be considered to be temporary workman. Mr. Muhammad Tasnim further argues that there was a break in his service viz. Break of one day i,e,1-1- 1988. Even if this argument is accepted still there is continuous service of twelve months from 2-1- 1988. After putting service for more than three months in the job which is not job of temporary nature, the respondent had acquired status of 'permanent workman' as defined under Standing Order No,l.
6. There is ambiguity as to whether the respondent was working in the factory from 1-1-1989 to 14-1- 1989 when another appointment order Annexure `E' was issued. In the cross-examination of the respondent, it is suggested to him that his services were terminated on 14-1-1989 for remaining absent from duty implying thereby that he continued in service up to that time. In the cross- examination of the witness of the appellant, Saddar Muhammad Khan, it is suggested, that the respondent worked continuously up to 31-12-1988 but there is no suggestion that he worked from 1- 1-1989 to 13-1-1989. It is not the contention of the appellant that the respondent resigned from 1-1- 1989. Even if he did not resume duties from 1-1-1989 to 13-1-1989, still his services could not be terminated except in accordance with the procedure laid down under Standing Order 15. The third appointment order Annexure 'N' shows that he was appointed on temporary basis for temporary work. There is no provision under which the employer could convert the employment of permanent workman into temporary employment therefore the mere mention in this letter that it was temporary employment would not make the respondent temporary workman. Under Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, an explicit reason has to be shown for termination of service of workman. The only reason shown for termaination of service is that he was temporary workman and the work for which he was employed was likely to be finished. Such a reason cannot be considered to be a proper and valid reason for termination of service of permanent workman.
Mr. Muhammad Tasnim has relied upon the case of P.I.A. v. Sindh Labour Court No,5 and others PLD 1980 Supreme Court 323. This case is distinguishable from instant case. In the reported case a contractor had employed the workman to supervise the work of contract, which was to last for certain period exceeding nine months. Their Lordships, however, observed that as nature of work itself was temporary, the mere fact that work lasted for more than nine months would not confer upon the workman the right of permanent workman. In the instant case, as pointed out above, even the nature of work on which the respondent was employed by the orders Annexures A and D is not specified and there is no evidence that the nature of his work was for limited period.
7. In view of above discussion I find no merits in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.