DECISION These to connected appeals by Muhammad Ramzan and Yar Muhammad workers of Pakistan Steel Mills are directed against the decision of the Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 20th August, 1993, whereby it was declared relying on the earlier decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the year 1987 (Mr. Ali Nawaz Budhani, J.) that it was for the Selection Committee of the Steel Mills to confirm the temporary recruited workman to be made permanent. That since the Pakistan Steel Selection Committee had not confirmed them as permanent workmen, and in the absence of such selection appellants could not claim the benefits of permanent workmen and consequently their petitions for being considered as permanent were, therefore, dismissed.
2. Against this dismissal order, the appellants have preferred this appeal. Their contention is that they have continuously worked for more than seven years in jobs of a permanent nature and under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Schedule under section 2(g), they automatically became permanent workmen. Under the Schedule, workmen are classified as permanent if they have been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and if they satisfactorily complete their probationary period of three months. As against this a temporary workman is a workman who has been engaged for work which is essentially of temporary nature, likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months. If the temporary work continues indefinitely for a longer period after nine months, the temporary workmen earn also the status of permanent workmen.
3. These appeals were decided by this Tribunal on 28-2-1995, ex parte, in the absence of the Advocate for Pakistan Steel Mills. Later, on the application of the Pakistan Steel, the parties were ordered to be re-heard.
4. Mr. Faiz Ghanghro, Advocate for the appellants has argued that the decision of the Tribunal quoted as precedent by the Labour Court, passed by Mr. Ali Nawaz Budhani, J. In the year 1987 that the workmen should be confirmed as permanent only by the Selection Committee of the Steel Mills, was overruled by Mr. Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, J. In the year 1990 (18-10-1990). In that case also appellants were appointed on temporary basis but in spite of putting in service for several years they were not being treated as permanent workmen. They accordingly filed their grievance petitions in the Labour Court for a declaration that they were permanent workers. The Labour Court considered them as temporary, daily wage workers. They went in appeal and the Appellate Court held that the workers were permanent workers and they were reinstated as such but they were awarded only 50% back benefits. Both the above decisions of the learned Appellate Tribunal are on different facts and grounds and they have no binding effect so for these appeals are concerned.
Each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits.
5. Mr. Zahid Hamid for the Steel Mills has on the other hand argued that no evidence has been led by the appellants whether they were recruited on probation or were initially engaged on temporary basis for what post they were engaged, and what was the nature of those posts, whether the posts were of permanent nature etc; and as such these workers had not shifted the burden to prove their status and they had offered no proof, nor led any evidence from which it could be inferred whether they were probationary or temporary or whether they were daily wage workers. But this argument is belied as the appellants have produced on record the orders of appointment which show that they were appointed on probation for a period of three months. On completion of three months probationary period they arc automatically to be considered as having been confirmed and they assume the character of permanent workers. It is immaterial whether after three months they again have to appear before the Selection Committee or not. These workmen are not governed by Private Rules of the Steel Mills but they fall under the definition of workers under Standing Orders Ordinance and I.R.O. They are to be governed by the law enunciated in these statutes and the private rules cannot override the I.R.O. And the Standing Orders Ordinance. The private Rules are not Statutory Rules. Mr. Zahid Hamid admits that these are no Statutory Rules application to these workers, that they have to undergo another selection for confirmation by the Selection Committee of the Steel Mills. But he says that this has been the practice in the Steel Mills and the Steel Mills are trying to have such Rules framed by the Federal Government as Statutory Rules, but they have not framed any rules so far. Mr. Faiz Ghanghro on the other hand has pointed out that even this practice of Selection Committee is not there as alleged by Mr. Zahid Hamid. That the appellants had received a letter in the year 1987 to appear before the Selection Committee for confirmation but the meeting of Selection Committee did not take place during the entire period from 1987 till today. This was the decision already made by this Tribunal in ex parte proceedings that the Private Rules of any Industrial Establishment or Corporation cannot override the law enunciated in Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 because these Standing Orders have the force of law and the Private Rules if in conflict with such Standing Orders will become redundant and inapplicable to that extent. Under the Standing Orders a period of probation for these workers was only three months while they had continued for nearly 7 years, at the the of filing the petition, and by now they have standing pf 12 years: The Standing Orders do not contain any condition for a second selection by the Selection Committee for earning the status of permanent workmen. If the workers are retained after three months for work of permanent nature they become automatically confirmed as permanent workers and in case of temporary workers they earn their status of permanent workers if they are continued for a period longer than nine months with intention to continue them indefinitely. On the strength of the alleged practice, as stated by Mr. Zahid Hamid, they are continued for ages as temporary workers. Even if they frame any Private Rules this could not be the position of workers as it would not be helpful either to the workers or the management. The practice should be transparent based on principle and it should not depend on more discretion of the Personnel Director. If such practice is continued it is bound to cause heart burning and frustration amongst genuine workers. It is high the that either the Statutory Law of Industrial Relations and the Standing Orders Ordinance are followed exclusively or Statutory Rules of the Steel Mills are framed to regulate question of confirmation. But till then the Standing Orders shall govern terms and conditions of the workers.
6. For these reasons the orders of the Labour Court in respect of these to appellants are set aside and they are to be regarded as permanent workers getting all the benefits and privileges of such workers. These orders will have prospective effect only and not retrospective effect. All the cases are to be determined on their own facts and merits and the orders in these to appeals shall not be quoted as precedent in other such cases of similar nature.