1. DECISION The above-cited cases are the cross-appeals filed by the respective parties against the order dated 21-11-1974 passed by Mr. Muhammad Shafi Sabir, Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Multan, whereby he accepted the petition of Manzur Hussain workman and having set aside the order of his dismissal ordered his re-instatement without any express order as to his entitle--ment to the back benefits accruing to him for the period intervening his dismissal and re-instatement.
2. The Management has challenged re-instatement of the workman while the latter hay sought further relief for the back benefits for the period of his unemployment between 3-6-1974 to 31-10- 1974 through their respective appeals. Since common questions are to be determined in the cross- appeals, they will be disposed of by this order.
3. The appellant Manzoor Hussain is admittedly working in the respondent establishment since 23-11- 1972 with nominal breaks of service. His services were terminated on 20-4-1973 on the plea of the closure of the crushing season. However, he was re-employed for the crushing season of 1973-74 and his services were again terminated on 14-2-1974. However he was once more re-employed on 16-2-1974 and terminated on 3-6-1974 as a seasonal temporary worker. According to the classification of a workman a permanent workman is he 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 an establishment. A temporary workman is he who has been engaged in the work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months. It is pertinent to note that the services of the workman in the present case were terminated on t4-2-1974 after he had served for the season 1973-74, but his services were acquired with a gap of only one day f .3r a further period of three months which clearly indicated that the job performed by the workman was not essentially of temporary nature and the termination in question was devised to hoodwing the requirements of law. Because had the service of the appellant not dispensed with for a day, he would have not only completed his probationary period, the job performed by him would also have acquired the status of a permanent vacancy required by the Management throughout the year. Moreover the Lieah Sugar Mills is not a seasonal concern and has been expressly excluded from the seasonal factories vide Government of (West Pakistan) Labour Department notification dated 27-5-1967 placed on the file on behalf of Manzur Hussain appellant.
4. In such background of the circumstances it has rightly been observed by the learned Junior Labour Court that the termination order dated 14-2-1974 unsupported by any reason should be regarded a nullity in the eye of law and workman should be considered to have remained in service from 17-5- 1973 to 13-6-1974. Besides the appointment order of Manzur Hussain appellant dated 16-2-1974 (Exh. P-1) does not mention the nature of his employment as being purely of temporary and seasonal nature. The expressed direction given in the appointment order that he would work in the `Indent Section' further gives an impression that he was appointed on a job of permanent nature inasmuch as `Indent Section' of an establishment cannot merely be characterised as temporary or seasonal branch of employment. So the re-instatement of Manzur Hussain, as a permanent worker stands fully justified and on that score the appeal filed on behalf of the Management is dismissed.
5. As regard the cross-appeal filed on behalf of Manzur Hussain, the obser--vation made in the impugned order by the learned lower Court in the words "the intervening period could be considered as leave without pay is not justified" in face of the employment of the appellant being held of permanent nature and termination of the service on 3-6-1975 being regarded as invalid and ineffective, he could not be deprived of the back benefits of his pay etc. For the period intervening his last termination and re-instatement under the impugned orders. Accordingly I hold that Manzur Hussain appellant will be entitled to get the benefits of pay for the aforesaid period.
6. The relevant appeal thus is accepted.