DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 8-7-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ibne Ayub, learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. S. Qamruddin Hassan learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Electrician on temporary basis for two months from 7-11-1988. His services were extended vide orders which are produced as Annexures 'B', 'C', 'D' and `E', respectively, filed with the reply statement. His services however terminated vide order dated 31-7-1989 from the said date.
4. The contention of the appellant in that as he had put in more than nine months service, he would be deemed to have acquired status of permanent workman, whereas the respondents contend, that he was temporary employee and his services were terminated after the work on which he was appointed had completed. In his cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that his duty was of temporary nature in connection with the renovation of head office and to replace old wiring therein. He has further admitted that after his termination one Electrician was appointed to do the same .Work for 12 days. The respondents deny to have employed any Electrician after the termination of the appellant, but even if it is accepted that they did employ someone for some days still these admissions of the appellant leave no room for doubt, that his employment was in a work of temporary nature.
5. With respect to his contention, that as he had worked for more than, nine months he would be deemed to have acquired the status of permanent workman, it would be necessary to reproduce the definition of permanent workman and temporary workman, under the Standing Order 1(b) and (e), respectively:--
(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.
(c) A 'temporary workman' is 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."
6. It would be seen that in both the definitions emphasis is on nature of work. In the instant case the admissions of the appellant clearly show that he was working on work of temporary nature. In the cases of Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No,5 and others, reported in PLD 1980 SC 323 their Lordships have considered the import of words 'likely to be' in clause (e) and have held "that words 'likely to be' in clause (e) denote that temporary workman cannot be deemed to be permanent workman, if work for which he was employed was likely to be finished within nine months, but work in fact completed after expiry of nine months." Therefore the mere fact that the appellant worked for ten months and some days would not confer the right of permanent workman upon him.
7. Admittedly the order dated 31-7-1989 was not served upon the appellant, as according to the respondents he had refused to accept the termination order. However, there is no authentic evidence to that effect nor there is evidence that subsequently, the order was communicated to the appellant through registered post. However, the order was served upon the appellant, through the Labour Court, alongwith copy of the written statement supplied to the appellant on 1-10-1989 during the course of proceedings under section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. As such this order of termination would be deemed to be effective from the date of service viz. 1-10- 1989 and till then the appellant would be deemed to be in service of respondents and would be entitled to the dues and benefits upto that day. In this context reliance is placed upon 1981 SCMR 631 (Muhammad Rauf v. Messrs Makran Fisheries Limited and another).
8. In view of the above discussions, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed with modification, that the respondents should pay the benefits and dues to the appellant upto 1-10-1989 within two months of this order.