The appeal. Is directed against an order dated 7-12-1995; rendered by the Punjab, Labour Court No.5 Sargodha, accepting the grievance petition filed by Sajjad Hussain under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969: Learned counsel for: the .Parties have preliminarily been heard.
2. It is urged that the respondent was purely a work-charged employee and was governed by the Departmental Rules (West Pakistan B &R Code) and as such he could not claim protection as regards his service in the should not plead that any right guaranteed or secured under law award or settlement had been infringed,, entitling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour. Court. The payrolls and, sanction letters, exhibited on the of the lower Court; as R-1 to R-9 reveal that the respondent had been recruited against purely temporary post and thus length of his service was immaterial. In holding, that he was a permanent workman and his services could not be terminated, except by observance of the requisite rules and formalities, the learned Labour Court has erred in law, it is contended by the learned counsel.
3. I have gone through the impugned decision. The learned Court below, I must say, has recorded elaborate and cogent reasons in upholding the claim of the employee, in turning down the stand- point taken up by the departmental Authorities. The observations made, reasons recorded and the findings arrived at, are unexceptionable, and there is available hardly any ground to differ with the same. A representative of 'the Department, Mr. Abdul Hameed .S,D.O, has, while appearing as a witness before the Labour Court, expressed himself categorically against the stand taken up by the Department, inasmuch as he had deposed that the respondent was initially appointed in the year 1989 and has continuously been in service since then, although necessary section for his continuity in service was accorded from the to the. That would, however, hardly make any difference; and it may be inferred that such a course was adopted by' the Authorities with a view to frustrate express provisions of law on the subject. The mere fact that the service span spreads over 'a period' of about five years would demonstrate that ':,it was not a temporary job against which Appointment of the respondent had been made. His services were very much needed` and there had also been no breaks so that under the statutory, provisions: he had acquired the status of a permanent workman.
4.No employment order was tendered by the respondents before the Labour Court and the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner could not, therefore, be ascertained, and, in absence of that, governance of employment of the official by the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as also the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could not be questioned. An employee performing the job, which the respondent has been doing, cannot be treated as a civil servant and has to be regarded as a permanent workman, whose services could not be terminated in summary fashion. In the instant case, it is conceded by the appellants that no show-cause notice was issued and no charge---sheet was served upon the employee, who was also not made to face any departmental enquiry. It is maintained that such formalities were not required, as the respondent was a work- charged employee. This plea of the appellants must be taken to be fallacious and erroneous.
Reference may be made to 1993 PLC (LHC) 160, L.D.A. v. Muhammad Ashraf, and the decision dated 17-6-1989, delivered by the Honourable Lahore High Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 4375/86. Departmental rules, if any, in conflict with the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, shall have to give way to the latter. The impugned order of termination of services of the respondent, set aside by the [earned lower Court, must be taken to be legally unsustainable. The appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.