DECISION These 24 appeals call in question the common order of the Labour Court allowing the petitions filed by the twelve petitioners under section 25-A of the IRO, .1969. These arose in the following circumstances: It was alleged by the petitioners who are twelve in number that they were working as mechanics and helpers in the respondent's establishment for a period ranging between 1976 and 1985. To begin with, they were called daily rated workers and later on the respondent employed them on contract basis. The petitioners had agreed to this unconscionable arrangement under coercion, and fear of losing their jobs. As the petitioners were for years together being denied the proper pay, allowances, and other fringe benefits as the permanent employees of the respondent were getting, they had sent grievance notices to the respondent to repair long standing wrong by meeting their just claims. There was no response from the respondent and thereupon they had filed the petitions.
The prayer in all these petitions was that the Court be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent management to allow the applicants, all benefits such as pay scale, allowances, medical facilities, bonus and uniform etc. Which are admissible to other permanent workers employed in the respondent's establishment from the date the applicants had completed 9months initial employment in the respondent's establishment.
2. It is alleged that the respondent served with the notices of the above petitions on 7-7-1989, out of sheer pique, and without a word in writing terminated the services of the petitioners, while juniors to them were retained in their employment. The orders being illegal, the prayer was that they be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
3. Both the petitions came to be resisted by the respondent in their written reply on the ground that the petitioners were temporary hands, employed only with intermissions. There was also the contention that the earlier petition was barred by time.
4. The petitioners were their own witnesses but only Peer Ghulam was cross-examined on behalf of the remaining petitioners. Muhammad Aslam, Manager, Planning and Installation appeared on behalf of the respondent and his cross-examination in the case of Peer Ghulam was treated as cross---examination on behalf of the others as well.
5. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it found all the 3 issues in favour of the petitioners and allowed both the sets of petitions as prayed, by means of a common order.
6. As for the bar of limitation, the respondents working with .The appellant for a minimum period of about 10 years continuously were deprived, of all their alleged benefits and pay to which a permanent workman would be entitled. It wall therefore constitute continuing injury and the cause of action will be recurring every month when they were short-changed. (See 1992 SCM R 19 and PLD 1975 Supreme Court 304).
7. The respondents had stated that they had been working with the appellant as mentioned earlier, for a period ranging from 1976 to 1985. Muhammad Aslam, Manager, Planning and Installation, the only witness produced on behalf of the appellant, in categorical terms admitted in his cross--- examination that he did not dispute the date of the appointment of the respondents as shown by them in their Annexures, and their job was installation of the Telephone Exchanges in Karachi. The position therefore that emerges is that they had been working certainly for over 9 months, which is the requirement of law for being treated as permanent workers. Evidently they were on these jobs for years together, and also without any break.
8. The installation of Telephone Exchanges is a work which will continue for ages. The demand exceeds the supply and the department is still having ambitious scheme for expansion coupled with improved technology. There can be no manner of doubt that the work of the respondents was of a permanent nature.
9. Muhammad Aslam the witness of the appellant has categorically admitted that the services were terminated verbally. According to him it was not necessary to give them anything in writing as they were mere temporary hands. As the matter stands the terminations were illegal, and in clear violation of labour laws. (See Pakistan International Airlines v. Bashir Ahmed, 1982 PLC page 436 and Allah Ditta v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1985 Lahore page 407.
As a result the impugned orders are affirmed and the appeals stand dismissed.