Soundness of the order dated 26-4-1993, rendered by Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, has been assailed, by way of the instant appeal, by the Authorities of the Irrigation Department, who were respondents before the Labour Court, petitioner there being one Muhammad Ismail.
2. Muhammad Ismail claimed having been working as Dak-Runner, with the Department of Irrigation; Government of the Punjab. He was involved in a murder case and was arrested on 8-2- 1976, whereupon he was suspended. He could not get himself admitted to bail and remained in jail continuously till 22-2-1983. He was convicted by the trial Court, but acquitted by the Honourable High Court on 22-2-1983. He approached his superiors in the Department for his reinstatement and continued making requests in that behalf, but to no avail. Eventually, the Authorities declined to take him back in service and to pay to him his dues. He pleaded to have served them with a grievance notice on 14-12-1987. Then, on 23-1-1988, he filed a grievance petition, under section 25- A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala.
3. Sh. Mumtaz Ali, Presiding Officer of the said Court, on 8-6-1989, dismissed the petition, as being barred by the, observing that the grievance --petitioner had slept over the matter for a period of about five years and the delay was not condonable. This Tribunal (Retired Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, being the Chairman), on 23-9-1989, set aside the Labour Court's order dated 8-6-1989, and remanded the case for its decision afresh, with a direction that the parties be allowed opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.
4. Syed Ali Hasan Rizvi, Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court, at Gujranwala, has, by an order announced on 26-4-1993, accepted the grievance petition, holding him entitled to service benefits, in terms of pension etc., his date of retirement being 19-12-1985. Since the employee did not claim back benefits, as he had not performed duty for a number of years, due to his detention on account of his involvement in a murder case, the back benefits were not granted to him. This order has been appealed against by the Department.
5. As against the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, the employee has not tiled any cross-objections, although in the course of his arguments; addressed by the learned counsel in this Tribunal, it has been asserted that his date of birth was 20-12-1928 and not 20-12-1925, as shown by his service record. Strangely. Enough, on 20-5-1989, about 60-1/2 years after the birth, claimed by Muhammad Ismail himself, he got his date of ' birth recorded as 20-12-1928 in the Birth Register of Town Committee, Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. The same was produced in the lower Court as'. Exh.P.6. As against it, the Department had tendered, in evidence, the document Exh. R. 3, showing Muhammad Ismail's date of birth as 20-12-1925, which date he had himself given, while seeking employment. Evidently, Exh. P. 6 is not to be treated as an authentic document; and correct date of birth of Muhammad Ismail, as existing in official record, is to be regarded as 20-12-1925. His date of retirement then would be 19-12-1985, as has been pronounced by the learned Labour Court, and his pensionary benefits have to be calculated with reference to the same. But, as held by the Labour Court, he has to be treated as a permanent employee of the Department, as he had rendered service for a period of about 13-1/2 years continuously, before he was arrested in a murder case on 8-2-1976. Stand-point of the appellants that he had to be regarded as a work- charged employee cannot be endorsed, as it was a regular and permanent job, against which he had been performing duty, without any break; and departments rules and regulations, if any, had to give Way to the provisions of The West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing .Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which envisaged that a workman engaged on a work of permanent nature, likely to last for a period of more than nine months, and having satisfactorily completed probationary period of three months, would qualify and acquire status of a permanent workman, irrespective of departmental practice and rules to the contrary. It has been so held categorically in the case reported as 1993 PLC 160 (Lahore High Court), L.D.A. v. Muhammad-Ashraf etc., and in the decision delivered by another honourable Judge (Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Lone), while disposing of, on 18-6-1989,, Writ Petition No. 4375 of 1986, Province of Punjab v. Gul Hasan etc.
6. When one becomes a permanent employee, and by nature of his work, is also to be treated as a workman, he is essentially entitled to issuance I of a show-cause notice and a charge-sheet and must be made to face a departmental enquiry, without which his services cannot be terminated.
Indisputably, in this case, this procedure had not been followed. My learned predecessor had also observed, in the course of his order dated 23-9-1989, that there was no evidence led to the effect that an order of Muhammad Ismail's dismissal from service was reduced into writing and it was conveyed to him; and, in absence of that, grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition, having been resorted to by the employee, about five years after his acquittal in the murder case apparently with good deal of delay, could not be treated to be the-barred. It has also been pronounced in the said order that the mere fact that the age of superannuation has reached would not be helpful to the Authorities in maintaining that the employee's claim for reinstatement in service, with consequential entitlement to service benefits, as pension etc., was not tenable.
7. This being the factual and legal position, the Department has no case in appeal, and what has been held by the learned lower Court must be taken to be unexceptionable. The appeal is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.