DECISION This. Appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. VII at Slur by which the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. Was allowed. In brief it arose in the following circumstances: It was alleged that the petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 1 as Beldar vide order dated 16-10-1488 anti was posted at Nara Sub- Division of Irrigation Department, Sukkur. He was promoted to the Darogha and was given his posting in the Januji heat. As he happened to be an office-bearer of the trade union, the authorities were nursing a grudge against him. He did not receive his pay also for some months. He did not specifically mention that his services had been terminated but referred to threats comingfrom the authorities in regard to the same.
2. In the Reply Statement filed by respondent No. 1 the main allegations came to be denied. It was alleged that his appointment as Beldar was, temporary and was on the work-charge basis. It went on to say that he was not promoted but was given appointment as Darogha and that also on work-charge basis. The termination of service came on 31-3-1991. It was also alleged that there was no grievance notice served on the respondent and as such the petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The other respondents did not care to file any written reply.
3. The petitioner was his own witness and Ghulam Haider Memon, Assistant Engineer, appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent.
4. Since Ghulam Haider admitted the receipt of the grievance notice in his cross-examination, so nothing need be said is that context.
5. Annexure A/3 filed by the respondent himself which pertains to his appointment as a Darogha clearly mentions that "he would be governed under all rules applicable to work-charge employees". Ghulam Haider has added that "the work for which he was engaged was completed by then" (31-3-1991).
6. As to be found in the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v. Punjab's Labour Court No. 1 and others reported in 1990 SCM R 1539, his services could be terminated even orally, as he was working on work-- charge basis.
7. Even if it be assumed as contended on his behalf that he was in the permanent establishment even then as a civil servant he could not seek any remedy from the Labour Court. As I am giving a decision today in some other appeals involving the same question in some detail, all I need say is that in view of the decisions in Faqir Muhammad v. Director of National Savings, Multan Division 1992 PLC 163 which is a judgment of the Supreme Court, and Government of Baluchistan v. Live Stock Department v. Live Stock Employees Union 1993 PLC page 13, the petition as presented was misconceived.
8. I will therefore vacate the impugned order and allow the appeal.