Muhammad Akhtar's grievance petition filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was accepted on 21-6-1995 by Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad; and the Authorities of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan have come up in appeal to this Tribunal, filed under section 37(3), (ibid).
2. Muhammad Akhtar was, on 14-11-1990, appointed as Chowkidar to work at the A.D.B.P. Hostel, Faisalabad. He applied-for regularization of his service, as a permanent employee. According to the appellants, Muhammad Akhtar had got employment on purely terminable basis, and as his performance had not been up to the mark, he was never made permanent, and additionally the hostel at Faisalabad was also shifted to Islamabad and the post of chowkidar became non- existent. On entertaining the grievance petition, it was ordered by the Labour Court that services of Muhammad Akhtar would not be terminated. Muhammad Akhtar was transferred to Islamabad and placed at the disposal of the Director, Staff College, A.D.B.P., Islamabad. He continued to be in service on the strength of the ad interim injunction issued in his favour.
3. Services of Muhammad Akhtar were terminable without notice, and had actually been terminated, according to the appellants. The stand taken up by the appellants, respondents before the Labour Court, was, however, found to be in-consistent, as in the written statement it had been averred that the services had been terminated, whereas vide Office: Memorandum dated 30-11- 1992, Exh. P-13, he stood transferred to the A.D.B.P. Staff College, Islamabad, the post of Chowkidar of the hostel at Faisalabad having become defunct or surplus. This incongruity has been taken notice of by the learned lower Court. The Labour Court is of the view that Muhammad Akhtar is still in service and there has never been any interruption in the continuity of service.
4. Undoubtedly, he would be treated to be a workman, being a Chowkidar. He has been in service since 14-11-1990, and under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, he was entitled to claim permanence. The learned lower Court has referred in this regard to1994 PLC 497 (Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal).
Regularization of service on attainment of permanent status as a worker, in the opinion of fine Court below, is secured or guaranteed right of the respondent, and he cannot be deprived of it, in an arbitrary manner, and except by following the formalities envisaged by the Labour Laws. The establishment has taken up the plea that the petitioner, having accepted a contractual post, was estopped be reason, of his conduct from invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, in an endeavour to protect his services and to claim permanent status as a workman. Even if, however, it was initially a temporary assignment, having for its basis a contract, the incumbent was entitled to remain in service, under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, having been in service for a period exceeding nine months and having completed probationary period of three B months. The plea of the employer that the performance of the employee had never been satisfactory cannot be accepted, as being truthful, the reason being that it was open to the employer to have dispensed with the services of Muhammad Akhtar, in the event of mal-performance of duties on his part.
5. The learned Labour Court, as such, has come to the right conclusion that Muhammad Akhtar's services were not liable to termination, and, on the contrary, he was entitled to regularization of his services and to confirmation. If, at all, he was found to be guilty of misconduct, he was to C be served with a show-cause notice/charge-sheet and made to face an inquiry, without which he would not be ousted from service. Obviously, if he remains in service, he will have a right to claim his emoluments as a permanent employee. I would endorse the decision of the learned Labour Court, and finding the appeal to be without merit, I would dismiss it, with costs.