DECISION These two appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court No.III, Karachi re-instating the petitioner but without awarding back benefits. The respondent had challenged the order of re- instatement, while the petitioner is dissatisfied with the denial of back benefits. The facts forming the background of these appeals are as follows:-- It was alleged by the petitioner that he was employed on 1-2-1988 as an electrician/fitter in the respondent Company which is manufacturing electrical goods, such as electrical panels, switches, plugs etc. Though the job was of a permanent nature the appointment given to him was on temporary basis, and his services were terminated on 30-10-1988. He was given again a temporary appointment from 8-1-1989 upto 7-9-1989 then from 8-1-1990 to 31-3-1990, and again from 1-5- 1990 to 31-12-1990. On this occasion he had approached the Labour Department and he was allowed to resume his duties on 5-4-1991. During this tenure some workers juniors to him had been made permanent. The petitioner also had made such a request and this request had irked the respondent who removed him on 30-9-1991 on the ground that he had himself resigned from his service, which was a brazen-faced lie. He had also sent them a telegram on 8-12-1991 and hearing nothing from them sent a grievance notice on 11-12-1991. The petition followed praying for re-- instatement in service alongwith all benefits admissible to the permanent workers of the respondent's establishment.
2. The respondents in their written reply maintained that the application was misconceived and frivolous as he was a temporary hand whose services were availed of only occasionally. According to them the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 5-5-1991 and the same came to be accepted vide letter dated 30-9-1991 which the petitioner had acknowledged. He had also collected his dues in full and final settlement of his claims on 3-10-1991 and acknowledged the receipt thereof. The other allegations came to be denied.
3. The petitioner was his own witness while Behram P. Kavasji the Factory Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. The Labour Court coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was a permanent workman of the respondent allowed the petition but refused back benefits as he had not mentioned in his petition that he was jobless.
5. Kavasji the witness of the respondent admitted that the petitioner had worked with them with effect from 1-2-1988 to 31-10-1988, again from 8-1-1989 to 7-9-1989, the third time from 1-5-1990 to 31-12-1990 and lastly from 5-4-1991 to 6-10-1991. It is their case that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 5-5-1991 but the same had been accepted on 30-9-1991. He has not chosen to account for such a long delay in the acceptance. He goes on to say that the acceptance of the resignation was not communicated to the petitioner in writing. He also admits that on 1-11-1990 some nine workers had been confirmed while the petitioner was in service.
6. Even the admissions of Kavasji showed that the petitioner had worked at least four times and all these periods were more than six months each. He does not say that the petitioner was engaged as a temporary hand because of t any special exigencies on all these occasions.
7. A temporary worker as defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance is "a workman who has been engaged for work which is of essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months". Kavasji has made use of this expression "an essentially temporary nature" for the various occasions on which the petitioner had been employed by them. We do not know what the essentially temporary work was.
8. The respondents are involved in the manufacture of electrical goods and on their own showing they have got 200 workers with them. The work done by the petitioner was of a permanent nature.
He was retained for a few months and then shown the door of the factory. This way he cost the respondents loss. This is nothing but an unconscionable exploitation of the labour. The use of the word temporary employment in the letter of appointment cannot be used as a magic wand for such a sordid deal.
9. It is not denied that the petitioner had complained about this exploitative practice to the Labour Department. It is, therefore, not surprising that the device of resignation came handy. What is queer however is that it took 5 months to act on this letter and without an order of formal acceptance.
10. The fact that he had accepted the payment will not debar him from seeking his remedies from the Labour Court. (See Climax Engineering Company Limited v. Shabbir Ahmed 1985 PLC 400).
11. I agree with the findings of the learned Presiding Officer that the petitioner in the circumstances of the case was a permanent workman. The Labour Court had however refused to give him the back benefits because he had not alleged in the petition that he was unemployed.
12. However, he had said so in his affidavit and according to the case of Muhammad Bashir and others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1991 SCMR 2087 referred to in the order, he could say it in the affidavit-in-evidence.
I will, therefore, dismiss the Appeal No.KAR-619 of 1992 filed by Messrs A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And allow the Appeal No.KAR-626 of 1992 filed by Syed Zaheerul Hassan. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.